From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755467Ab0IQP7k (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:59:40 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:33471 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753854Ab0IQP7j (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:59:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:59:37 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Nishanth Menon Cc: linux-arm , lkml , Phil Carmody , linux-doc , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jesse Barnes , "Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan" , "Aguirre, Sergio" , Andi Kleen , linux-pm , Matthew Garrett , Len Brown , Eduardo Valentin , linux-omap , "Gopinath, Thara" , Linus Walleij , "Granados Dorado, Roberto" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Romit Dasgupta , Tero Kristo , Andrew Morton , "Premi, Sanjeev" Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] opp: introduce library for device-specific OPPs Message-ID: <20100917155937.GB29596@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <1284686973-13993-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20100917153643.GC29739@sirena.org.uk> <4C938EE2.1010307@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C938EE2.1010307@ti.com> X-Cookie: BOFH excuse User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:53:06AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > Mark Brown had written, on 09/17/2010 10:36 AM, the following: > >It might be clearer to use some term other than enabled in the code - > >when reading I wasn't immediately sure if enabled meant that it was > >available to be selected or if it was the active operating point. How > >about 'allowed' (though I'm not 100% happy with that)? > ;).. The opp is enabled or disabled if it is populated, it is > implicit as being available but not enabled- how about active? this > would change the opp_enable/disable functions to opp_activate, > opp_deactivate.. > Recommendations folks? The enable/disable thing wasn't so noticable in the API itself, it was in the data structures that I found it confusing - the core has a different idea about what's going on with the system as a whole compared to the decision that an individual device is taking. > >When reading the description I'd expected to see some facility to > >trigger selection of an active operating point in the library (possibly > >as a separate call since you might have a bunch of operating points > >being updated in quick succession) but it looks like that needs to be > >supplied externally at the minute? > The intent is we use the opp_search* functions to pick up the opp > and enable/activate it and disable/deactivate it. Sure, I get that bit. What I meant was that I was expecting something that would say that changes had been made to the enabled/disabled sets and that it'd be a good idea to rescan, especially for cases where the devices change their requirements but the OPPs need to be done over a larger block.