linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1411271216470.8104-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:18:23 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Use CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME in
 core code

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> >> I have also tested the two Kconfig options; CONFIG_PM_SLEEP (which
> >> selects CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) and for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME (with
> >> CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unset).
> >>
> >> That brings me to a raise a question; why do we need to keep these two
> >> configurations options? Couldn't we also have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME to
> >> select CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, that will further simplify things?
> >
> > My plan is different.  I'm going to eliminate PM_RUNTIME from the code
> > and then replace it with PM as a selectable option.  Then, PM_SLEEP will
> > select PM (directly) and PM_RUNTIME can be entirely dropped.
> 
> What's your rationale for keeping PM_SLEEP, and not consolidating both
> PM_RUNTIME and PM_SLEEP into PM? I.e. what am I missing, still
> considering myself a PM newbie?
> 
> > So in the end we'll have one Kconfig option less, which is a win IMO.
> 
> Having two less may be a bigger win ;-)

I imagine that Rafael would like to continue supporting platforms that 
want to have runtime power management but not suspend or hibernation.  
A number of embedded systems might fall into this category.

Alan Stern

--
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/