From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clear abnormal poweroff flag on VIA southbridges, fix resume Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:54:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20060620085429.GB27362@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20060618191421.GA15358@srcf.ucam.org> <20060619230144.155bc938.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:58800 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965068AbWFTIyc (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:54:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060619230144.155bc938.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:01:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Is CONFIG_ACPI the right thing to use here? As opposed to, say, CONFIG_PM? > Or CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP?? I've implemented it using the acpi register handling code, so CONFIG_ACPI_something makes sense. I believe that the APM bios will handle it itself, but the machine I have doesn't support APM so can't check that. CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP might be a better choice than CONFIG_ACPI, yes. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org