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

[Lina Iyer]

On Tue, Sep 30 2014 at 12:41 -0600, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre at linaro.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre
>>> <nicolas.pitre at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com> 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.
>
Standby - looks good to me.