Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME in core code

[Ulf Hansson]

On 27 November 2014 at 01:37, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After commit b2b49ccbdd54 "PM: Kconfig: Set PM_RUNTIME if PM_SLEEP is
> selected" (currently in Linux next) CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is set whenever
> CONFIG_PM is set, so CONFIG_PM can be used in #ifdefs instead of
> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME which simplifies things in quite a few cases.
>
> For this reason, the following patches modify some core code to use
> CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME.
>
> [1/4] Drop a macro which is redundant after the above commit.
> [2/4] Use PM instead of PM_RUNTIME in the core device PM code.
> [3/4] Use PM instead of PM_RUNTIME in the ACPI core.
> [4/4] Use PM instead of PM_RUNTIME in the PCI core.
>
> They build for me for all of the relevant combinations of options (on x86),
> but more testing (on the other architectures) would be welcome.

I really like the looks of this patchset!

Noticed that you have applied it for your bleeding edge branch, I
suppose that means you will get some "free" testing in linux-next?

Anyway, I have tested it for ux500 (including the genpd support for
it, available in linux-next). It works nicely!

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?

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/