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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:36, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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.

Hmm, why don't we do the $subject change first (the advantage if it is that
the patch is ready) and then move the necessary definitions to the arch level?

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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/