[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102091807.03094.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:07:02 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove CONFIG_PM altogether, enable power management all the time
On Wednesday, February 09, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 03:35:29PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
> > For 2.6.38-rc4, x86_64, CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4:
>
> > size vmlinux
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> >
> > 6553910 3555020 9994240 20103170 132c002 vmlinux with CONFIG_PM
> > 6512652 3553116 9994240 20060008 1321768 vmlinux without CONFIG_PM
> >
> > 41258 1904 0 43162 delta
>
> > That is big enough for me to care.
>
> Hrm, that's pretty surprising. It'd be interesting to know how much of
> that is due to the PM core itself and how much of that is from drivers.
> For the drivers CONFIG_PM isn't really the option they should be using
> in the first place - they mostly want some combination of PM_SLEEP and
> PM_RUNTIME for the specific functionality. I'm running some checks now.
>
> > > CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y
>
> Raphael's patch will make this a user visible option in place of raw
> CONFIG_PM by default so you'd be able to turn that off.
No, it won't (just to clarify).
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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