On Mon 2007-08-06 13:15:17, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:26 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Well, so that it does not bitrot? This is few bytes, I'd say, and I > > believe we have too many config options already. > > This is not an option the user is ever going to see. I think I'd > prefer Ok, option that users can't set is probably not evil. > having two new per-ARCH config symbols though: > config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE > > and then the architecture gets to define that when it can suspend. Looks like a plan. 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
