"Peter 'p2' De Schrijver" <peter.de-schrijver@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This patch introduces a new C state C0 which keeps both core and mpu > powerdomains in ON state. This gives us low latency at a cost of higher > power consumption. > I don't like the name 'C0' for an idle-state. In ACPI terms, C0 is an active state, not an idle state. I know this is not an ACPI system, but since we're using ACPI names, we should be consistent. Is there a real benefit to having an additional state here? Shouldn't we just make these changes or C1? Also, for a single patch, can you include the description in the patch itself instead of the 'PATCH 0/1'. Thanks. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
