Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:00:17 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME in core code | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Rafael,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> I have also tested the two Kconfig options; CONFIG_PM_SLEEP (which >> selects CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) and for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME (with >> CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unset). >> >> That brings me to a raise a question; why do we need to keep these two >> configurations options? Couldn't we also have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME to >> select CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, that will further simplify things? > > My plan is different. I'm going to eliminate PM_RUNTIME from the code > and then replace it with PM as a selectable option. Then, PM_SLEEP will > select PM (directly) and PM_RUNTIME can be entirely dropped.
What's your rationale for keeping PM_SLEEP, and not consolidating both PM_RUNTIME and PM_SLEEP into PM? I.e. what am I missing, still considering myself a PM newbie?
> So in the end we'll have one Kconfig option less, which is a win IMO.
Having two less may be a bigger win ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |