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