On 10/25/2010 8:48 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Monday 25 October 2010 16:56:04 Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Arjan van de Ven<arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 10/25/2010 7:36 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: >>> ok so we have >>> >>> "C0 idle" > Ideally this should not be called C0, but expressed > as (#define) POLL_IDLE wherever possible. > > In all documentations/specs/white papers about other OSes > C0 is refered to as not being idle. > Linux mis-uses it as a self-defined idle state which > is really confusing. sure naming is one thing >>> and >>> "C0 no longer idle" >>> >>> I'd propose using the number 0 for the first one (it makes the most >>> logical sense, it's the least deep idle state etc etc) > I would use a special number for the "Linux only" state. that special number is 0 though.. it makes sense in ordering, 0 < 1, 1 < 2 etc 0 makes for a really bad special number for the exit marker; not just here, but also for your suspend hook, that one definitely needs to change (since current commercially available SOCs already reuse 0 for this for standby level states) _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
