Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:55:18 +0200 | Subject | Re: [TRIVIAL] sanitize power management config menus, take two | From | Ducrot Bruno <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > > > o only enable cpufreq options if power management is selected > > > > o don't put cpufreq options in a separate submenu > > > > > > Yes, but what I do not understand is why cpufreq need power management. > > > > Because it is a power management option. :) > > > > CONFIG_PM is a dummy option, it does not link any code into the kernel > > by itself. > > Actually, it does: > > ./arch/arm/kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o > ./arch/arm/mach-pxa/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o sleep.o > ./arch/arm/mach-sa1100/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o sleep.o > ./arch/i386/kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += suspend.o > ./drivers/pci/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += power.o > ./kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o power/ > > > But, I agree with your change anyway.
Then why? You may want to scale cpu frequency without having power managements in mind. Likewise for acpi btw (think HT only or irq routing via acpi for instance).
-- Ducrot Bruno
-- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |