On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 08:38, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE > > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions. > > Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"? > > > I don't know for sure if the architecture list under SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > > is correct. For now it simply matches the list for > > SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE. > > I do not think it is. No, it's not. > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Kconfig | 7 ++++++- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig > > index 412859f..ccf6576 100644 > > --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig > > +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig > > @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ config PM_TRACE > > CAUTION: this option will cause your machine's real-time clock to be > > set to an invalid time after a resume. > > > > +config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > > + bool > > + depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES || > > At least ARM can do suspend, too... probably others. ARM, frv, sh, mips and blackfin (AFAICS). > I was under impression that SUSPEND is "supported" by all the architectures, > just some of them veto it at runtime (using pm_ops or how was it renamed). Historically, suspend support was implied by CONFIG_PM. For now, it's not much point in using CONFIG_PM at all if the arch in question doesn't support suspending or hibernation, so I thought it would be better to leave it unrestricted. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
