On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:05:40AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > More of an observation for your (b) justification. I'd probably force
> > CONFIG_PM to always 'y'w while we weeding references to it from
> > drivers...
>
> We simply can't
Hi!
> It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
> resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
> and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
Ok, how much memory do we talk about here?
Lots of embedded systems are AC powere
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:52:00PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 02/07/11 04:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Since having the configuration option requires non-zero effort to
> > maintain, with ifdefery in most drivers, but it is used with vanishing
> > rarity it is simpler to just remove the option.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I really think we should do things that makes sense rather that worry about
> who's going to like or dislike it (except for Linus maybe, but he tends to
> like
> things that make sense anyway). At this point I think the change
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 05:17:59PM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Mark Brown
> > I'm rather hoping that they'll notice the mailing list thread or that
> > someone else who knows what's going on with them does
> Surely you're joking. I mean, do _you_ scan every message tha
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:05:40AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry T
On 02/07/11 04:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
> resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
> and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
> Since having the configuration option requires no
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> I'm rather hoping that they'll notice the mailing list thread or that
> someone else who knows what's going on with them does
Surely you're joking. I mean, do _you_ scan every message that comes
through lkml and its various sister lists?
Do a g
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:05:40AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +010
On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brow
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but some people seem very kee
On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, but some people seem very keen on removing the pointers to the PM
> > > ops entirely when CONFIG_PM is dis
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, but some people seem very keen on removing the pointers to the PM
> > ops entirely when CONFIG_PM is disabled which means that you end up with
> > varying idioms for w
On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:46:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:14:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > > I think it would be better to simply rename CO
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:46:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:14:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I think it would be better to simply rename CONFIG_PM_OPS into CONFIG_PM.
> > That still leaves the IA6
On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:14:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > config PM_DEBUG
> > > bool "Power Management Debug Support"
>
> > I think it would be better to simply rename CONFIG_
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:14:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > config PM_DEBUG
> > bool "Power Management Debug Support"
> I think it would be better to simply rename CONFIG_PM_OPS into CONFIG_PM.
That still leaves the IA64 emulator
On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:36:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > I'd not be so sure - since it's a bool without an explicit default set
> > > Kconfig will default to disabling it and if anything enabling
On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
> resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
> and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
> Since having the configuration option
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:36:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'd not be so sure - since it's a bool without an explicit default set
> > Kconfig will default to disabling it and if anything enabling it is the
> > option that requires special effort.
> Thi
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 02:19:16AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > At least some of the powerpc defconfigs were added with CONFIG_PM
> > disabled. I assume that was on purpose (though it may not have been).
>
> I'd not be so sure - since it's a bool
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 02:19:16AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> At least some of the powerpc defconfigs were added with CONFIG_PM
> disabled. I assume that was on purpose (though it may not have been).
I'd not be so sure - since it's a bool without an explicit default set
Kconfig will defaul
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 02:10:45 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:00:55 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> >
> > $ git grep "CONFIG_PM is not set"
> > 7cf3d73b4360e91b14326632ab1aeda4cb26308d^ -- arch/ | wc -l
> > 256
> > $
> >
> > 7cf3d73b4360e91b14326632ab1aeda4cb26308d is
Hi Geert,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:00:55 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
>
> $ git grep "CONFIG_PM is not set"
> 7cf3d73b4360e91b14326632ab1aeda4cb26308d^ -- arch/ | wc -l
> 256
> $
>
> 7cf3d73b4360e91b14326632ab1aeda4cb26308d is the commit that introduced
> savedefconfig, so that's a safe revisio
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 15:50, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:44:32AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 + Mark Brown
>> wrote:
>
>> > Do you mean that these systems require CONFIG_PM be turned off, or just
>> > that people tend not to turn it on? I
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:44:32AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 + Mark Brown
> wrote:
> > Do you mean that these systems require CONFIG_PM be turned off, or just
> > that people tend not to turn it on? If the latter would you expect any
> > ill effects from d
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 + Mark Brown
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:13:24AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:22:15 + Mark Brown
> > wrote:
>
> > > + bool
> > > + default y if !IA64_HP_SIM
>
> > Several powerpc configs have CONFIG_PM (impli
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:13:24AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:22:15 + Mark Brown
> wrote:
> > + bool
> > + default y if !IA64_HP_SIM
> Several powerpc configs have CONFIG_PM (implicitly) disabled (e.g. the
> server configs), so this will unexpectedly turn it
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:22:15 + Mark Brown
wrote:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> index 2657299..99e3c52 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig
> +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> @@ -1,23 +1,6 @@
> config PM
> - bool "Power Management support"
> - dep
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 01:40:28PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Which means that (for now) I don't have to care that CONFIG_PM becomes
> unclearable. Other people may care, though...
The whole point of the patch is that (other than the IA64 emulator which
explicitly requires that CONFIG_PM
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 01:48:46PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mark Brown wrote:
> > Since having the configuration option requires non-zero effort to
> > maintain, with ifdefery in most drivers, but it is used with vanishing
> > rarity it is simpler to just remove the option.
> Well, either m
* Mark Brown wrote:
> It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
> resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
> and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
> Since having the configuration option requires non-zero effort
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 13:22, Mark Brown
wrote:
> It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
> resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
> and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
Hmmm...
> --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig
It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
Since having the configuration option requires non-zero effort to
maintain, with ifdefery in m
34 matches
Mail list logo
