Re: [linux-pm] Re: [Resend][PATCH] PM: Fix dependencies of CONFIG_SUSPEND and CONFIG_HIBERNATION (updated)

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2007-08-06 11:29:51, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 11:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > +config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> > > +	bool
> > > +	depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC32 && PPC_MPC52xx) \
> > > +		   || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES || PPC_PMAC)) || ARM || BLACKFIN \
> > > +		   || MIPS || SUPERH || FRV
> > > +	depends on !SMP
> > > +	default y
> > 
> > I guess I'd rather left SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE to allways y (as it always
> > was), and let architectures that can't handle it  not return "mem"
> > from list of valid states...
> 
> Yeah, that's the utterly broken interface we used to have. Until I fixed
> it to have no valid states until architectures implement suspend_ops.
> Still, I disagree, why bother with compiling code that can't ever be
> used?

Well, so that it does not bitrot? This is few bytes, I'd say, and I
believe we have too many config options already. I do not think
suspend_ops code is big enough to warrant separate config
option... just disable CONFIG_PM or something.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/