[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110209195918.GD23747@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:59:18 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
Cc: "Rowand, Frank" <Frank_Rowand@...yusa.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, 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-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org" <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove CONFIG_PM altogether, enable power management
all the time
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 11:53:52AM -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 11:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Not really, the goal was to simplify the PM config options to ones that
> > are actually useful and cut down on the number of silly combinations
> > that the randconfigs turn up. CONFIG_PM is there mostly for historical
> > reasons, it doesn't really mean much by itself except as a gate to other
> > options.
> I'm confused. Do you plan to retain the option to
> turn off PM features completely, or not? I thought that's
> what CONFIG_PM did today.
Raphael's patches do that in a much better way than my original patch,
my original patch would have force CONFIG_PM on but still allowed all
the PM features that it controls to be turned on and off individually.
--
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