Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> > >> >> Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> writes: [...] >> >> > This may be misleading. Call it PlatformWFI or something like that, not WFI if >> >> > that's not what it is. >> >> >> >> This gets at a little pet peeve of mine: >> >> >> >> IMO, naming any state with "WFI" is a bit confusing, because typically >> >> *every* idle state is entered by one (or more) CPU executing WFI, no? >> > >> > Agreed. >> > >> > The only state called "WFI" should be the one that only executes the WFI >> > instruction without any other hardware setup around it. >> >> Well, I would go even further in that none of the states should be >> called WFI, because WFI is used to enter all of them. > > Fair enough. > > So let's fix this by finding a name for that state that consists of only > executing WFI and that every SOC has. > > Suggestions? The DT idle-states binding doc (though seemingly written more with arm64 and SBSA in mind) uses "standby" for the shallowest idle. Kevin -- 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
