On Friday, April 15, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2011, Magnus Damm wrote: > > > > My only thought on this is if we really want to limit ourselves to > > > only control power domains using these callbacks. I can imagine that > > > some SoCs want to do other non-power domain specific operations with > > > these callbacks, and if so, perhaps using the term power domain as > > > name of the pointer in struct device would be somewhat odd. OTOH, I > > > really dislike naming discussions in general and I can't really think > > > of any good names. So it all looks more like a set of system specific > > > PM override hooks. > > > > > > Or is there something that is really power domain specific with these hooks? > > > > Not in principle, but I think there is. Namely, if there are two groups > > of devices belonging to the same bus type (e.g. platform) that each require > > different PM handling, it is legitimate to call them "power domains" (where > > "domain" means "a set of devices related to each other because of the way > > they need to be handled"), even if they don't share power resources. > > > > Of course, if they do share power resources, the term is just right. :-) > > They could be called "PM domains" instead of "power domains". That's > legitimate because they do get used by the PM core, even if they don't > literally involve groups of devices sharing the same power supply. Well, "power domain" can be regarded as a short form of "power management domain", which makes the point kind of moot. ;-) Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
