On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Mark Hambleton wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_BIG_LITTLE) += arm_big_little.o > > There is nothing big.LITTLE specific in all of this, so arm_idle.c would > >be better. > > I figured that because the current version calls into the big.little > platform power framework (bL_entry.c) and makes calls into that > framework that this wasn't totally generic and is dependant upon that > code. The version of the cpuidle driver won't build unless that code > is built in, so I still think this is more appropriate naming, I could > call it bL_* but I suspect someone will object to that upstream > because of the mixed case.
I'll wait that someone with a cluebat. Semantically, "bL_" is the most efficient prefix you could find to refer to b"ig.LITTLE". And no one eported any issue with that from the initial public review so far. Nicolas _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
