Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- From: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:27:17 -0400
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 20:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
> > myself always welcome. :-)
>
> well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
> and done nothing about it. I did ping davej when he broke it,
> but his to-do list is probably even longer than mine.
ping timeout.
I don't recall too many of the details surrounding those changes,
but I certainly won't stand in the way of anyone trying to fix it.
It sounds like you and Robert are on top of it, or do you want me to
poke at it ?
well, before i get even more confused by what was (once upon a time) a
fairly straightforward removal patch, the first obvious question is --
are there *any* circumstances that *require* a config selection of
CONFIG_PM_LEGACY, as opposed to a selection of APM and/or ACPI? if
there are, then it can't simply be removed. my original patch
submission was based on the assumption that absolutely no one needed
the legacy stuff anymore and absolutely everything related to it could
be scrapped.
so, first things first: what *needs* legacy PM at the moment?
rday
p.s. i'm confused by the header file include/linux/pm_legacy.h,
especially this part:
========================
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
...
# else /* CONFIG_PM_LEGACY */
#define PM_IS_ACTIVE() 0
...
#endif
=======================
so the macro "PM_IS_ACTIVE()" represents whether *legacy* PM has
been selected. in other words, it makes no (apparent) sense that the
value of that macro would represent some kind of contention mechanism
between APM and ACPI, which is entirely independent from the legacy
stuff. right?
yep, the problem is that PM_IS_ACTIVE() got mixed up in CONFIG_PM_LEGACY.
how about i send a patch to fix this first -- when i get back tomorrow.
and then the CONFIG_PM_LEGACY patch will not be tangled in this?
-Len
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- From: Robert P. J. Day
- Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- From: Dave Jones
- Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- From: Robert P. J. Day
- [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- Prev by Date: Re: AppArmor FAQ
- Next by Date: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
