Re: [TRIVIAL] sanitize power management config menus, take two

[Ducrot Bruno <poup@poupinou.org>]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:47:47AM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> 
> > Trouble is, the same goes for ACPI -- it doesn't require that CONFIG_PM
> > code be present.
> 
> I initially missed that part of your patch, and that is incorrect - Only
> part of ACPI (CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) should depend on CONFIG_PM.
> 
> > I think the correct x86 solution would be to introduce a real dummy
> > option for the menus, and imply CONFIG_PM if APM or swsusp (the two
> > options that seem to actually need CONFIG_PM code) is enabled.
> 
> I can buy that. There are actually three levels of power management that 
> we handle:
> 
> - System Power Management (swsusp, CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP)
> - Device Power Management (kernel/pm.c, future driver model support)
> - CPU Power Management (cpufreq)
> 
> SPM implies that DPM will be enabled, but both DPM and CPM can exist 
> without SPM, and independently of each other. All of them would 
> essentially fall under CONFIG_PM.. 
> 
> Would you willing to whip up a patch for the Kconfig entries? 

I mostly agree.  The only trouble is then:

$ egrep -rl '#ifdef[:space:]+CONFIG_PM$' linux-2.6.0-test2/ | wc -l
    96

I think it make sense to change this by CONFIG_DPM.

Opinions?

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.