From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755535Ab3LFAxY (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:53:24 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:52669 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752956Ab3LFAxU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:53:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 01:53:19 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Alan Stern Cc: Len Brown , Ulf Hansson , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] PM: Enable option of re-use runtime PM callbacks at system suspend Message-ID: <20131206005318.GB27953@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2013-12-05 17:21:50, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Len Brown wrote: > > > This thread raises the question... > > > > Do we still need to have PM_RUNTIME apart from PM_SLEEP? > > > > What is the benefit of being able to build-in one one without the other? > > If that benefit is not significant, perhaps the time has come to > > replace them both with CONFIG_PM... > > There are lots of embedded/SoC platforms that implement PM_RUNTIME but > not PM_SLEEP. And lots of PCs where PM_SLEEP is useful but PM_RUNTIME is not :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html