On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 06:07:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Sven Van Asbroeck <thesve...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Taking above into consideration perhaps sleep is not quite good word > >> at all. By functional description it sounds like latency tolerance to > >> me. > > > > That's true, but the bit description in the chip datasheet is 'SLEEP'. > > (its real function is suspend/low power, but the chip designers called > > it 'SLEEP') > > > > Calling the bit/function something else is likely to confuse someone > > who's reading the driver in combination with the chip datasheet. > > Looking again into the patch I have noticed: > 1) word 'sleep' is used as a part of a function name; > 2) int sleep is used as binary value. > > Thus, I would suggest: int sleep -> bool enable (or alike). > > Would we agree on that?
That sounds good to me. I guess it will have to be an incremental patch since this one has already been applied.
