On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to make sure > > that only one of ACPI and APM get initialized ... > > i don't see how that has anything to do with removing legacy PM > support. you can select both ACPI and APM *now*. if that's a bad > thing, then fixing it is a completely independent issue.
Except your patch removes this hunk:
@@ -2264,14 +2248,6 @@ static int __init apm_init(void)
apm_info.disabled = 1;
return -ENODEV;
}
- if (PM_IS_ACTIVE()) {
- printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: overridden by ACPI.\n");
- apm_info.disabled = 1;
- return -ENODEV;
- }
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
- pm_active = 1;
-#endif
in apm.c and a similar piece of the ACPI initialisation that prevented
one initialising if the other had already initialised.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpn9wuNsU4bB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
