On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I have also tested the two Kconfig options; CONFIG_PM_SLEEP (which > >> selects CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) and for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME (with > >> CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unset). > >> > >> That brings me to a raise a question; why do we need to keep these two > >> configurations options? Couldn't we also have CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME to > >> select CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, that will further simplify things? > > > > My plan is different. I'm going to eliminate PM_RUNTIME from the code > > and then replace it with PM as a selectable option. Then, PM_SLEEP will > > select PM (directly) and PM_RUNTIME can be entirely dropped. > > What's your rationale for keeping PM_SLEEP, and not consolidating both > PM_RUNTIME and PM_SLEEP into PM? I.e. what am I missing, still > considering myself a PM newbie? > > > So in the end we'll have one Kconfig option less, which is a win IMO. > > Having two less may be a bigger win ;-) I imagine that Rafael would like to continue supporting platforms that want to have runtime power management but not suspend or hibernation. A number of embedded systems might fall into this category. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
