On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:56 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 6 August 2007 13:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > > 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. > > Hmm, why don't we do the $subject change first (the advantage if it is that > the patch is ready) and then move the necessary definitions to the arch level? Sounds good to me as well, that way we already have the basic stuff in place. Hey, we could even migrate over slowly by making SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE depend on ARCH_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE *and* all the arches that support it right now. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
