[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708061314.42632.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:14:41 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [Resend][PATCH] PM: Fix dependencies of CONFIG_SUSPEND and CONFIG_HIBERNATION (updated)
On Monday, 6 August 2007 11:29, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 11:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > +config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> > > + bool
> > > + depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC32 && PPC_MPC52xx) \
> > > + || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES || PPC_PMAC)) || ARM || BLACKFIN \
> > > + || MIPS || SUPERH || FRV
> > > + depends on !SMP
> > > + default y
> >
> > I guess I'd rather left SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE to allways y (as it always
> > was), and let architectures that can't handle it not return "mem"
> > from list of valid states...
>
> Yeah, that's the utterly broken interface we used to have. Until I fixed
> it to have no valid states until architectures implement suspend_ops.
> Still, I disagree, why bother with compiling code that can't ever be
> used?
Yes, that's the idea.
BTW, Pavel please see: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/3/303
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