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

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2007-08-06 13:15:17, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:26 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > Well, so that it does not bitrot? This is few bytes, I'd say, and I
> > believe we have too many config options already.
> 
> This is not an option the user is ever going to see. I think I'd
> prefer

Ok, option that users can't set is probably not evil.

> having two new per-ARCH config symbols though:
> config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> 	depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> 
> and then the architecture gets to define that when it can suspend.

Looks like a plan.

									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/