On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.k...@hp.com> wrote: > ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines > bit 3 as follows. > > Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed > to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is > considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes. > > This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be > confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set. > > Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec. > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.k...@hp.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.mo...@intel.com> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/acpi/nfit.h | 2 +- > include/acpi/actbl1.h | 2 +-
This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so any changes need to come through them. But that said, I'm not sure we need friendly names at this level. What I usually say about sysfs name changes to be more human friendly is "sysfs is not a UI", i.e. it's not necessarily meant to be user friendly. As long as the names for the flags are distinct then wrapping descriptive / accurate names around them is the role of libndctl and userspace management software. Similar feedback for patch1 in the sense that I don't think we need to update the sysfs naming. For example the API to retrieve the state of the "arm" flag in libndctl is ndctl_dimm_failed_arm(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
