From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME in core code Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:20:03 +0100 Message-ID: References: <37310416.jZXoh5nfSC@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]:43457 "EHLO mail-qg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755094AbaK0JUE (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:20:04 -0500 Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z107so3289594qgd.15 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:20:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Linux PCI , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , Alan Stern , Bjorn Helgaas , Kevin Hilman , Geert Uytterhoeven On 27 November 2014 at 09:57, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 27 November 2014 at 01:37, Rafael J. Wysocki 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? > I had look at it. Do you think the below approach could work? I guess the questions is if there are some configurations that use CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME but not CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. And if so, should we care? diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig index 6e7708c..425f83a 100644 --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig @@ -94,7 +94,6 @@ config PM_STD_PARTITION config PM_SLEEP def_bool y depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS - select PM_RUNTIME config PM_SLEEP_SMP def_bool y @@ -131,21 +130,12 @@ config PM_WAKELOCKS_GC default y config PM_RUNTIME - bool "Run-time PM core functionality" - ---help--- - Enable functionality allowing I/O devices to be put into energy-saving - (low power) states at run time (or autosuspended) after a specified - period of inactivity and woken up in response to a hardware-generated - wake-up event or a driver's request. - - Hardware support is generally required for this functionality to work - and the bus type drivers of the buses the devices are on are - responsible for the actual handling of the autosuspend requests and - wake-up events. + def_bool y + depends on PM_SLEEP config PM def_bool y - depends on PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME + depends on PM_SLEEP Kind regards Uffe