From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270759AbTHFULk (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:11:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270822AbTHFULk (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:11:40 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:2780 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270759AbTHFULi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:11:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:06:53 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Tomas Szepe , Ducrot Bruno , lkml Subject: Re: [TRIVIAL] sanitize power management config menus, take two Message-ID: <20030806130652.GA6914@openzaurus.ucw.cz> References: <20030805165117.GH18982@louise.pinerecords.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > I think the correct x86 solution would be to introduce a real dummy > > option for the menus, and imply CONFIG_PM if APM or swsusp (the two > > options that seem to actually need CONFIG_PM code) is enabled. > > I can buy that. There are actually three levels of power management that > we handle: > > - System Power Management (swsusp, CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) > - Device Power Management (kernel/pm.c, future driver model support) > - CPU Power Management (cpufreq) > > SPM implies that DPM will be enabled, but both DPM and CPM can exist > without SPM, and independently of each other. All of them would > essentially fall under CONFIG_PM.. > > Would you willing to whip up a patch for the Kconfig entries? We have enough trouble making sure *current* PM code runs with all possible config combinations; I do not think we want more PM options for now. -- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...