From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757553AbYBUHnG (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:43:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752581AbYBUHmy (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:42:54 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:47829 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752376AbYBUHmw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:42:52 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=lcUZuZya58saI7W2ayOmWg9w0CNuPwwISGxs2909+osOSp85SjdhyL0APFdywJMTqeGOsMwwD5ICQhGrMOthKjhOrrRkIt0NtgmAxibma1YBxJXQBvfB97pw59SVLRbR2HGB51ObxNK7X4rDZoznAHPf6fgPvEP4nJbjXbwGKHQ= Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:43:46 +0000 From: Jarek Poplawski To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Frans Pop , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG?] APM is hidden in menuconfig Message-ID: <20080221074346.GA3919@ff.dom.local> References: <20080220120828.GD3885@ff.dom.local> <200802210123.44367.rjw@sisk.pl> <200802210221.52765.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200802210221.52765.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 02:21:52AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 21 of February 2008, Frans Pop wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 20 of February 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > >> So, has it to be so hard? It seems not - at least in good old times... > > > > > > Something in APM uses some code from drivers/base/power/main.c that > > > depends on PM_SLEEP. > > > > Sure, but that does not make Jarek's point invalid. From a user PoV APM is a > > high-level configuration option. That is what he wants. > > It should thus be easily accessible and not be buried beneath a lot of > > other, much more technical, options. Probably Frans is right: this should be my point... But I'm not so "greedy", and I would be happy if it were at least more visible. It simply seems to me quite not obvious to even think about turning SUSPEND on when I have problems with a basic acpi function. Even more interesting question is why this APM or PM_SLEEP dependency on SUSPEND (or HIBERNATION) isn't visible with "/" searching: PM_SLEEP looks like some "hidden" option - that's why I tried first to find some comment in arch/ instead of simply reading Kconfig. > > Could this maybe be solved by making APM automatically 'select' some options > > instead of 'depending' on them? > > That, unfortunately, doesn't work. > > IMO the solution might be to separate the APM suspend code from the rest of the > APM code and make it depend on (PM_SUSPEND && APM). ...Or at least to mention APM in SUSPEND title and description. Actually, this is really strange: both SUSPEND and PM_SLEEP have default = y. So it seems they are intended to be more "advertised" than they are? Thanks & regards, Jarek P.