[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110208014432.2c9288e4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 01:44:32 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:13:24AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:22:15 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> 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 on for them.
>
> 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 doing so?
I don't know the answer to either question without testing. All I am
saying is that currently the default for CONFIG_PM is "off" and you are
changing it to be "on" and there may not have been any testing done of
that in some situations. We don't know where it was explicitly
turned off any more since we shrank our defconfig files (which was done
automatically) ... since it is off by default, it doesn't need to be
mentioned in a defconfig unless it needs to be turned on.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists