From: Jos Hulzink <josh@stack.nl>
To: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
Cc: Robert Varga <nite@hq.alert.sk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:21:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200211012221.56346.josh@stack.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021101194711.GB714@suse.de>
On Friday 01 November 2002 20:47, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > ACPI implements PM but that's not all it implements. Is making CONFIG_PM
> > true if ACPI or APM are on a viable option? I think that would more
> > accurately reflect reality.
> >
> > Or can we get rid of CONFIG_PM?
>
> I'm not sure of places that do it off the top of my head, but
> CONFIG_PM would save us having to do ugly CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
> tests.
This seems to be true from what I have seen of the source so far.
I'm thinking....
ACPI is more than Power Management. The fact that a system supports ACPI does
not mean that the user wants to use power management. On the other hand, I
see no reason why a user does NOT want a system to auto poweroff, and sleep
and suspend are easy to configure in BIOS, or by linux tools. (Does Linux
take over the BIOS settings for suspend & sleep ? Don't use them, so
donnow....) What I wanna say: I think it is okay if CONFIG_PM is replaced by
CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
Other issue: Are ACPI and APM not mutually exclusive ? If so, I would propose
a selection box: <ACPI> <APM> <none> with related options shown below. Hmzz..
there the issue of the fact that ACPI is more than power management shows up
again.
And well... CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI might look ugly to you, I think it isn't
that bad, besides, you gain a lot from the configuration side. IMHO
configuring the kernel has become hard enough with the new input layer
already :( Maybe it is time for a "[ ] show expert options" in the
configuration tool...
Jos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-01 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-01 19:37 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on Grover, Andrew
2002-11-01 19:47 ` Dave Jones
2002-11-01 21:21 ` Jos Hulzink [this message]
2002-11-01 20:31 ` Dave Jones
2002-11-02 20:11 ` Jos Hulzink
2002-11-06 0:38 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-11-06 15:08 ` David Woodhouse
2002-11-06 16:33 ` Bill Davidsen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-31 19:45 Robert Varga
2002-11-01 19:02 ` Jos Hulzink
2002-11-01 19:12 ` Jos Hulzink
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200211012221.56346.josh@stack.nl \
--to=josh@stack.nl \
--cc=andrew.grover@intel.com \
--cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nite@hq.alert.sk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox