From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S970365AbdDTPHl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:07:41 -0400
Received: from mail-qk0-f196.google.com ([209.85.220.196]:36857 "EHLO
        mail-qk0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S970349AbdDTPHj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:07:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGngYiXHaDxbz9jpc=P4kT6n2yKHRmFznuse3beWXi35JCK8Yw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1492088291-5215-1-git-send-email-svenv@arcx.com>
 <1492088291-5215-2-git-send-email-svenv@arcx.com> <1492506852.24567.54.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <CAGngYiWj1jBsgYAL31Qb2Ne+Te34vpjWD14xbV+u9vRS0i8kkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdaDP8GZGz5ZkKpSDdszjRzA+Miw=K7d_g3aeKTN4Ce=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAGngYiXHaDxbz9jpc=P4kT6n2yKHRmFznuse3beWXi35JCK8Yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:07:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcOb1_kvNNP5Ptp5e_8-ipHLM5Oy6W-_pv=GcUNiz0XVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pwm: pca9685: fix gpio-only operation.
To: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Taking above into consideration perhaps sleep is not quite good word
>> at all. By functional description it sounds like latency tolerance to
>> me.
>
> That's true, but the bit description in the chip datasheet is 'SLEEP'.
> (its real function is suspend/low power, but the chip designers called
> it 'SLEEP')
>
> Calling the bit/function something else is likely to confuse someone
> who's reading the driver in combination with the chip datasheet.

Looking again into the patch I have noticed:
1) word 'sleep' is used as a part of a function name;
2) int sleep is used as binary value.

Thus, I would suggest: int sleep -> bool enable (or alike).

Would we agree on that?
-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko