[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110402122810.1371afa8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:28:10 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] x86 idle APM: deprecate CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE
> We don't want to export the pm_idle function pointer to modules.
> Currently CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE w/ CONFIG_APM_MODULE forces us to.
So you could jsut compile it in ...
> CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE is of dubious value, it runs only on 32-bit
> uniprocessor laptops that are over 10 years old. It calls into
> the BIOS during idle, and is known to cause a number of machines
> to fail.
It also works on lots of desktops from that era, more of which are still
around.
>
> Removing CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE and will allow us to stop exporting
> pm_idle. Any systems that were calling into the APM BIOS
> at run-time will simply use HLT instead.
(which is btw what quite a few later APM implementations seem to do ;))
> +What: CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE, and its ability to call APM BIOS in idle
> +When: 2.6.40
One release isn't enough time - it won't propagate out - you keep
rushing, hurrying and pushing at this trying to do it fast.
Why - its a sigle symbol export of minor ugliness, it doesn't justify the
amount of hatred you are expending upon it.
Give it a year, it doesn't cause any complexities I can see.
--
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