lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [TRIVIAL] sanitize power management config menus, take two
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.086 / U:5.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site