* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd appreciate it if people could review/test it and drop their comments. > > Thanks, > Rafael > > --- > arch/x86/xen/Kconfig | 2 +- > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 - > drivers/acpi/bus.c | 4 +--- > drivers/acpi/internal.h | 6 ++++++ > drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 13 +++++++++++-- > drivers/base/power/Makefile | 3 +-- > drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c | 8 ++++---- > drivers/net/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_main.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/scsi/Makefile | 2 +- > drivers/scsi/scsi_priv.h | 2 +- > drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c | 2 +- > drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c | 4 ++-- > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 2 +- > include/linux/pm.h | 2 +- > kernel/power/Kconfig | 29 +++-------------------------- > 16 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) Ok, there's some real bang for bucks in this patch, nice! It's a beginning. Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> Also, i've Cc:-ed Linus, to check whether the idea to make power management a permanent, core portion of Linux has any obvious downsides we missed. Rafael, could you do a defconfig-ish x86 build with and without CONFIG_PM, and post the 'size vmlinux' comparison - so that we can see the size difference? We make some things CONFIG_EXPERT configurable just to enable folks who *really* want to cut down on kernel size to configure it out. Note that those usecases, even if they want a super-small kernel, might not care about PM at all while they care about size: small boot kernels in ROMs, or simple devices where CPU-idling implies deep low power mode, etc. So the vmlinux size comparisons would be needed really. If it's 5k nobody will care. If it's 50k-100k that's borderline. In the other side of the scale we have the 1500+ #ifdef CONFIG_PM lines strewn around the kernel source, and the frequent !PM build breakages. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
