On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:17:54 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 9 September 2014 05:31, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09/08/14 16:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> So more bikeshedding. :-) > > :) > > >> Isn't "generic" somewhat too broad? Surely it doesn't cover x86. And does > >> it actually cover anything without clocks/regulators? > > It can work without regulators but not clocks. > > > I thought when you bikeshed you have to come up with a different color ;-) > > > > Perhaps "cpufreq_cpus"? > > I don't have any affection to the word 'generic' here and it can be anything > we want it to be. But yeah, we shouldn't let these patches wait for that for > too long :) > > What name do you suggest Rafael? > > - cpufreq_generic > - cpufreq_cpus > - cpufreq_dt If it relies on DTs being used, this probably is the right name to call it. > - cpufreq_platform > - cpufreq_cpuX > > Let me know and I will prepare pending patches accordingly :) -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
