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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:32 EST