On Mon 2007-08-06 11:29:51, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 11:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > +config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > > > + bool > > > + depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC32 && PPC_MPC52xx) \ > > > + || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES || PPC_PMAC)) || ARM || BLACKFIN \ > > > + || MIPS || SUPERH || FRV > > > + depends on !SMP > > > + default y > > > > I guess I'd rather left SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE to allways y (as it always > > was), and let architectures that can't handle it not return "mem" > > from list of valid states... > > Yeah, that's the utterly broken interface we used to have. Until I fixed > it to have no valid states until architectures implement suspend_ops. > Still, I disagree, why bother with compiling code that can't ever be > used? Well, so that it does not bitrot? This is few bytes, I'd say, and I believe we have too many config options already. I do not think suspend_ops code is big enough to warrant separate config option... just disable CONFIG_PM or something. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
