From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME in core code Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:18:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ulf Hansson , Linux PM list , Linux PCI , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , Bjorn Helgaas , Kevin Hilman List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > 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 ;-) 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