linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] PM: Enable option of re-use runtime PM callbacks at system suspend

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:21:50 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
cc:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] PM: Enable option of re-use runtime PM callbacks at
 system suspend

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.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/