lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
Date
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 20:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > > > p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
> > > > myself always welcome. :-)
> > >
> > > well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
> > > and done nothing about it. I did ping davej when he broke it,
> > > but his to-do list is probably even longer than mine.
> >
> > ping timeout.
> >
> > I don't recall too many of the details surrounding those changes,
> > but I certainly won't stand in the way of anyone trying to fix it.
> > It sounds like you and Robert are on top of it, or do you want me to
> > poke at it ?
>
> well, before i get even more confused by what was (once upon a time) a
> fairly straightforward removal patch, the first obvious question is --
> are there *any* circumstances that *require* a config selection of
> CONFIG_PM_LEGACY, as opposed to a selection of APM and/or ACPI? if
> there are, then it can't simply be removed. my original patch
> submission was based on the assumption that absolutely no one needed
> the legacy stuff anymore and absolutely everything related to it could
> be scrapped.
>
> so, first things first: what *needs* legacy PM at the moment?
>
> rday
>
> p.s. i'm confused by the header file include/linux/pm_legacy.h,
> especially this part:
>
> ========================
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
> ...
> # else /* CONFIG_PM_LEGACY */
>
> #define PM_IS_ACTIVE() 0
> ...
> #endif
> =======================
>
> so the macro "PM_IS_ACTIVE()" represents whether *legacy* PM has
> been selected. in other words, it makes no (apparent) sense that the
> value of that macro would represent some kind of contention mechanism
> between APM and ACPI, which is entirely independent from the legacy
> stuff. right?


yep, the problem is that PM_IS_ACTIVE() got mixed up in CONFIG_PM_LEGACY.
how about i send a patch to fix this first -- when i get back tomorrow.
and then the CONFIG_PM_LEGACY patch will not be tangled in this?

-Len

-
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: 2007-04-19 19:33    [W:0.106 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site