From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] create CONFIG_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:36:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20070805183633.GA1758@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200707251238.50218.lenb@kernel.org> <200707302354.23237.lenb@kernel.org> <20070731063833.GD22419@elf.ucw.cz> <200708031523.19623.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:40884 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751699AbXHESgl (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 14:36:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708031523.19623.lenb@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , david@lang.hm, Andrew Morton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Bunk , Stefan Richter , Nigel Cunningham , pm list On Fri 2007-08-03 15:23:19, Len Brown wrote: > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:38, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE > > > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions. > > > > Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"? > > Yes. > > > > I don't know for sure if the architecture list under SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > > > is correct. For now it simply matches the list for > > > SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE. > > > > I do not think it is. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown > > > --- > > > Kconfig | 7 ++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig > > > index 412859f..ccf6576 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig > > > +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig > > > @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ config PM_TRACE > > > CAUTION: this option will cause your machine's real-time clock to be > > > set to an invalid time after a resume. > > > > > > +config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > > > + bool > > > + depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES || > > > > At least ARM can do suspend, too... probably others. I was under > > impression that SUSPEND is "supported" by all the architectures, just > > some of them veto it at runtime (using pm_ops or how was it renamed). > > The reason this entire thread started is because Linus, Jeff and others > said that they didn't want code magically compiled into their kernel > that they did not explicitly ask for -- even if the savings were small > and that kernel was already something rather beefy, such as ACPI+SMP. > > The current code is simply broken, because it allows SUSPEND > on IA64 if UP, but not on SMP. It should really be neither. Actually, it should be both, AFAICT. Suspend infrastructure should be there, just returing -EINVAL... that's how it worked in 2.6.22 IIRC. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html