Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:20:45 +0200 | Subject | Re: [TRIVIAL] sanitize power management config menus, take two | From | Ducrot Bruno <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:47:47AM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > Trouble is, the same goes for ACPI -- it doesn't require that CONFIG_PM > > code be present. > > I initially missed that part of your patch, and that is incorrect - Only > part of ACPI (CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) should depend on CONFIG_PM. > > > I think the correct x86 solution would be to introduce a real dummy > > option for the menus, and imply CONFIG_PM if APM or swsusp (the two > > options that seem to actually need CONFIG_PM code) is enabled. > > I can buy that. There are actually three levels of power management that > we handle: > > - System Power Management (swsusp, CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) > - Device Power Management (kernel/pm.c, future driver model support) > - CPU Power Management (cpufreq) > > SPM implies that DPM will be enabled, but both DPM and CPM can exist > without SPM, and independently of each other. All of them would > essentially fall under CONFIG_PM.. > > Would you willing to whip up a patch for the Kconfig entries?
I mostly agree. The only trouble is then:
$ egrep -rl '#ifdef[:space:]+CONFIG_PM$' linux-2.6.0-test2/ | wc -l 96
I think it make sense to change this by CONFIG_DPM.
Opinions?
-- 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/
| |