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

From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Thu Nov 27 2014 - 12:00:40 EST

Hi Rafael,

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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?
> My plan is different. I'm going to eliminate PM_RUNTIME from the code
> and then replace it with PM as a selectable option. Then, PM_SLEEP will
> select PM (directly) and PM_RUNTIME can be entirely dropped.

What's your rationale for keeping PM_SLEEP, and not consolidating both
PM_RUNTIME and PM_SLEEP into PM? I.e. what am I missing, still
considering myself a PM newbie?

> So in the end we'll have one Kconfig option less, which is a win IMO.

Having two less may be a bigger win ;-)



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at