Re: [RFC/PATCH v3 00/13] PM QoS: add a per-device latency constraints class

From: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com>
To: markgross@thegnar.org
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
	Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v3 00/13] PM QoS: add a per-device latency constraints class
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:37:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAORVsuVoJ5-1hx2+6+gCuuWDd9A9h_RTS=U1228BM7EYiG=gxA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110728131454.GA2579@gvim.org>

Mark,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:30:07AM +0200, jean.pihet@newoldbits.com wrote:
>> From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
>>
>> This patch set is in an RFC state, for review and comments.
>>
>> High level implementation:
>>
...

>> 7. Misc fixes to improve code readability:
>> . rename of the PM QoS implementation file from pm_qos_params.[ch] to pm_qos.[ch]
> I picked the name for the file as pm_qos_params over pm_qos because I
> wanted to make it implicitly clear that this was not an full QOS
> implementation.  True QOS carries expectations similar to real time and
> as the infrastructure is closer to "good intentioned" than even "best
> effort" and offers no notification when the QOS request is not able to
> be met and really doesn't implement a true QOS at all, (it just provides
> the parameter interface for part of one its missing the notification
> interface when the service level is not met and I think a few other
> things.) So I wanted to have it named a bit different from just pm_qos.
>
> This said I'm not supper attached to the naming of the modules.  If
> folks want to change it I wouldn't complain (too much anyway;).
Ok got the idea. I do not know what name to chose though. As suggested
previously the name pm_qos_params does not reflect the implementation,
that is why I renamed it.

>
> --mark
> PS I'll look at the rest of the patches tomorrow, this time for real as
> I'm about to have more free time to focus on non-work stuff :)
Thanks you for reviewing!

> FWIW this write up sounds interesting.
Hope it is readable ;p

Regards,
Jean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html