Subject: [PATCH v7 5/7] qcom: cpuidle: Add cpuidle driver for QCOM cpus

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Hilman)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:41:19 -0700

Nicolas Pitre <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lorenzo Pieralisi <[email-masked]> writes:

[...]

>> >> > This may be misleading. Call it PlatformWFI or something like that, not WFI if
>> >> > that's not what it is.
>> >>
>> >> This gets at a little pet peeve of mine:
>> >>
>> >> IMO, naming any state with "WFI" is a bit confusing, because typically
>> >> *every* idle state is entered by one (or more) CPU executing WFI, no?
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > The only state called "WFI" should be the one that only executes the WFI
>> > instruction without any other hardware setup around it.
>> 
>> Well, I would go even further in that none of the states should be
>> called WFI, because WFI is used to enter all of them.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> So let's fix this by finding a name for that state that consists of only 
> executing WFI and that every SOC has.
>
> Suggestions?

The DT idle-states binding doc (though seemingly written more with
arm64 and SBSA in mind) uses "standby" for the shallowest idle.

Kevin