Hi Kevin, On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Before we get any users of this function, fix the name (and comments) > to use loose instead of lose. > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> > --- > Applies to v2.6.39-rc4 > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c | 6 +++--- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > index 9af0847..ec3423f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > @@ -960,18 +960,18 @@ u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm) > } > > /** > - * pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context - can this powerdomain ever lose context? > + * pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context - can this powerdomain ever loose context? 'lose' is correct in this case,. It's derived from the idiom 'context loss'. more broadly, 'loose' implies a strong sense of agency on the part of whatever is doing the 'loosing,' whereas 'lose' does not (it's the PRCM that causes the powerdomain to lose context, not the powerdomain itself - the powerdomain's logic/memory context is subject to the PRCM's whim) - Paul -- 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
