[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110207145031.GL10564@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:50:31 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:44:32AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> > 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.
My suspicion would be that it'll have been turned off by someone hitting
return through a config upgrade rather than through deliberate effort.
On the other hand if it is essential for some machines to have it
disabled they probably want to have somethnig in Kconfig.
--
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