Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Add Power Management Unit driver

[David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:26:21AM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 07:07:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 17:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 17:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 12:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > In the TRM it's called Power Management Unit, though once or
> > > > > > twice
> > > > > > in some 
> > > > > > documents as Power Management Controller. I actually woudn't
> > > > > > like to
> > > > > > use PMC 
> > > > > > abbreviation to not be confused with pmc_atom.c and many other
> > > > > > variation of 
> > > > > > existing PMC drivers of other Intel platforms.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > PM* as a prefix might be too short to conflict with Power
> > > > > > Management
> > > > > > framework 
> > > > > > in the kernel. P-Unit (punit*) is existing part in SoC which
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > have its own 
> > > > > > driver in the future, so, can't use it either.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > pwr*, pwrmu*, scpmu* (as of South Complex Power Management Unit)
> > > > > > —
> > > > > > one of them?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 'pwr' certainly sounds good to me! PWMU perhaps?
> > > > 
> > > > Wouldn't be a bit confusing with pwm? I would stay at 'pwr'.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, indeed - so pwr it is?
> > 
> > Yes. Will rename in this way, re-test and re-send.
> 
> I'm curious about that. What pmu prefix would stand for?

Nevermind :)
I'd vote for pwmu, as it would make more sense WRT the hw
documentation.

Br, David

> 
> Br, David