From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME in core code Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:00:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <37310416.jZXoh5nfSC@vostro.rjw.lan> <2907778.ZNoNjGGGYl@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2907778.ZNoNjGGGYl@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Ulf Hansson , Linux PM list , Linux PCI , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , Alan Stern , Bjorn Helgaas , Kevin Hilman List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi Rafael, On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki 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 ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org 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