* Tim Bird wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Rafael, could you do a defconfig-ish x86 build with and without CONFIG_PM,
> > and
> > post the 'size vmlinux' comparison - so that we can see the size
> > difference? We
> > make some things CONFIG_EXPERT configur
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> but maybe it would be about APM being enabled. Which is what the caller
>> actually seems to care about and talks about for the failure case. Maybe
>> you need separate functions for the "is APM enabled" case for the naming
>> to make s
On Wednesday, February 09, 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
> > CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
>
> The patch may _work_, but I really hate it
Ack on patches 2-5 in this series. It's just patch 1/5 that I think is
too ugly/odd to live.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
> CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
The patch may _work_, but I really hate it. That function naming is insane:
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> #
On 02/08/11 04:21, Ingo Molnar wrote:
< snip >
> Also, i've Cc:-ed Linus, to check whether the idea to make power management a
> permanent, core portion of Linux has any obvious downsides we missed.
>
> Rafael, could you do a defconfig-ish x86 build with and without CONFIG_PM,
> and post
> th
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Rafael, could you do a defconfig-ish x86 build with and without CONFIG_PM,
> and post
> the 'size vmlinux' comparison - so that we can see the size difference? We
> make some
> things CONFIG_EXPERT configurable just to enable folks who *really
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Reorder configuration options in kernel/power/Kconfig so that
the options depended on are at the top of the list.
This patch doesn't introduce any functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
---
kernel/power/Kconfig | 222 +
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
After redefining CONFIG_PM to depend on (CONFIG_PM_SLEEP ||
CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) the CONFIG_PM_OPS option is redundant and can be
replaced with CONFIG_PM.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
---
drivers/acpi/sleep.c |4 ++--
drivers/base/power/Makefile
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>From the users' point of view CONFIG_PM is really only used for
making it possible to set CONFIG_SUSPEND, CONFIG_HIBERNATION,
CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME and (surprisingly enough) CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE
(CONFIG_PM_OPP also depends on CONFIG_PM, but quite artificially).
However, bo
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_ADVANCED_DEBUG should depend on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
and CONFIG_CAN_PM_TRACE need not depend on EXPERIMENTAL. Modify
kernel/power/Kconfig along those lines.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
---
kernel/power/Kconfig |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
---
drivers/acpi/Kconfig|1 -
drivers/acpi/bus.c |4 +---
drivers/acpi/internal.h |6 ++
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > I'd appreciate it if people could review/test it and drop their comments.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rafael
> >
> > ---
> > arch/x86/xen/Kconfig |2 +-
> > drivers/acpi/Kconfig |
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.
* Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'd appreciate it if people could review/test it and drop their comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/Kconfig |2 +-
> drivers/acpi/Kconfig |1 -
> drivers/acpi/bus.c |4 +---
> drivers/acpi/i
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
