From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove CONFIG_PM altogether, enable power management all the time Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:59:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20110209195918.GD23747@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <4D51D341.3040209@am.sony.com> <20110209114137.GA10163@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201102091807.03094.rjw@sisk.pl> <4D52DD81.7050401@am.sony.com> <20110209184010.GB23747@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4D52E441.2000805@am.sony.com> <20110209192506.GC23747@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4D52F0D0.9020609@am.sony.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D52F0D0.9020609@am.sony.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tim Bird Cc: "Rowand, Frank" , Frank Rowand , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Len Brown , Alan Stern , "linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Dmitry Torokhov , "linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 11:53:52AM -0800, Tim Bird wrote: > On 02/09/2011 11:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Not really, the goal was to simplify the PM config options to ones that > > are actually useful and cut down on the number of silly combinations > > that the randconfigs turn up. CONFIG_PM is there mostly for historical > > reasons, it doesn't really mean much by itself except as a gate to other > > options. > I'm confused. Do you plan to retain the option to > turn off PM features completely, or not? I thought that's > what CONFIG_PM did today. Raphael's patches do that in a much better way than my original patch, my original patch would have force CONFIG_PM on but still allowed all the PM features that it controls to be turned on and off individually.