From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: <20110207145031.GL10564@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1297081335-13631-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110208011324.d5371c4c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110207141829.GK10564@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110208014432.2c9288e4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110208014432.2c9288e4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Alan Stern , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Dmitry Torokhov , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, ppc-dev On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:44:32AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 +0000 Mark Brown wrote: > > Do you mean that these systems require CONFIG_PM be turned off, or just > > that people tend not to turn it on? If the latter would you expect any > > ill effects from doing so? > I don't know the answer to either question without testing. All I am > saying is that currently the default for CONFIG_PM is "off" and you are > changing it to be "on" and there may not have been any testing done of > that in some situations. We don't know where it was explicitly > turned off any more since we shrank our defconfig files (which was done > automatically) ... since it is off by default, it doesn't need to be > mentioned in a defconfig unless it needs to be turned on. My suspicion would be that it'll have been turned off by someone hitting return through a config upgrade rather than through deliberate effort. On the other hand if it is essential for some machines to have it disabled they probably want to have somethnig in Kconfig. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A4DB711B for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 01:50:37 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:50:31 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users Message-ID: <20110207145031.GL10564@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1297081335-13631-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110208011324.d5371c4c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110207141829.GK10564@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110208014432.2c9288e4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20110208014432.2c9288e4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Cc: Len Brown , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Torokhov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, ppc-dev , Andrew Morton List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 01:44:32AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:18:29 +0000 Mark Brown wrote: > > Do you mean that these systems require CONFIG_PM be turned off, or just > > that people tend not to turn it on? If the latter would you expect any > > ill effects from doing so? > I don't know the answer to either question without testing. All I am > saying is that currently the default for CONFIG_PM is "off" and you are > changing it to be "on" and there may not have been any testing done of > that in some situations. We don't know where it was explicitly > turned off any more since we shrank our defconfig files (which was done > automatically) ... since it is off by default, it doesn't need to be > mentioned in a defconfig unless it needs to be turned on. My suspicion would be that it'll have been turned off by someone hitting return through a config upgrade rather than through deliberate effort. On the other hand if it is essential for some machines to have it disabled they probably want to have somethnig in Kconfig.