[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707311115.29057.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:15:27 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, david@...g.hm,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce CONFIG_SUSPEND (updated)
On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 06:59, Len Brown wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007 17:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Still, there are many other files in which CONFIG_PM can be replaced
> > with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP or even with CONFIG_SUSPEND, but they can be updated in
> > the future.
>
> There is #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> around all the .suspend and .resume methods.
>
> Technically they are PM_DEVICE_STATES or something,
> that could really be under PM, and both SUSPEND and HIBERNATE
> would depend on PM_DEVICE_STATES, but it is also possible to have
> PM_DEVICE_STATES without SUSPEND and HIBERNATE.
Well, the people on linux-pm seem to agree that the .suspend() and .resume()
callbacks are not suitable for runtime power management, so having them
built without SUSPEND or HIBERNATION wouldn't be very useful. ;-)
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists