On Saturday, September 18, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki had written, on 09/17/2010 05:22 PM, the following: > > On Friday, September 17, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> Mark Brown had written, on 09/17/2010 10:36 AM, the following: > >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:29:33PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>> > >>>> +struct opp_def { > >>>> + unsigned long freq; > >>>> + unsigned long u_volt; > >>>> + > >>>> + bool enabled; > >>>> +}; > >>> 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.. > > > > Would that mean that "active" is the one currently in use? > > I like the idea Phil pointed out[1] on using "available" instead.. > opp_enable and disable will make the OPP available or not. does this > sound better? Yes, it does. Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html