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.