> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 24 March 2017 11:33 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson > <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Owen Smith <owen.sm...@citrix.com>; Wei Liu > <wei.l...@citrix.com>; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] tools/firmware: add ACPI device for Windows > laptop/slate mode switch > > >>> On 24.03.17 at 12:19, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> Sent: 24 March 2017 11:16 > >> To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson > >> <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Owen Smith <owen.sm...@citrix.com>; Wei > Liu > >> <wei.l...@citrix.com>; xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] tools/firmware: add ACPI device for Windows > >> laptop/slate mode switch > >> > >> >>> On 24.03.17 at 12:04, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> >> Sent: 24 March 2017 10:53 > >> >> The only other concern I have here is that the abbreviation "conv" > >> >> used throughout the patch is sort of ambiguous. I think it means > >> >> "convertible" here, but without knowing the context it could easily > >> >> be "conventional" or "convenience". Would there be anything > >> >> wrong with spelling it out wherever name length limitations don't > >> >> require it to be just four characters? > >> >> > >> > > >> > I thought that name would be ok since it is the name of the ACPI device > >> > itself but I could extend the xl.cfg option, bool and flag names to > >> > 'acpi_convert' to make it more obvious. > >> > >> Hmm, "convert" still leaves room for speculation (in particular, seeing > >> an option with this name, I'd suspect it wants to convert ACPI to > >> something else). Is that what "conv" stands for (and not "convertible" > >> or anything else)? > >> > > > > It was chosen simply because of the name of the device. How about > > 'acpi_device_conv'? After all this option merely controls the inclusion of > > the device. Subsequent patches will have to add a PV protocol to instruct > > in-guest code to prod it. > > That name is not much better. Looking at MS doc, why don't we call > it by the name that they use there: acpi_laptop_slate?
Ok, sounds fine. 'acpi_laptop_slate' it is. Paul > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
