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

From: Alan Stern
Date: Thu Nov 27 2014 - 12:18:28 EST

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> 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 ;-)

I imagine that Rafael would like to continue supporting platforms that
want to have runtime power management but not suspend or hibernation.
A number of embedded systems might fall into this category.

Alan Stern

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