On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:36:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > I'd not be so sure - since it's a bool without an explicit default set > > > Kconfig will default to disabling it and if anything enabling it is the > > > option that requires special effort. > > > This may be a naive suggestion, but have you considered simply _asking_ > > the people who added those defconfigs? > > I'm rather hoping that they'll notice the mailing list thread or that > someone else who knows what's going on with them does - as Geert pointed > out there's a considerable number of defconfigs that have this turned > off. It seems more sensible to get some idea if this seems sane to > people in the general case before going trying to identify and contact > so many individuals. > > If there are systems that really require disabling CONFIG_PM we probably > need to add stuff to Kconfig to make sure it can't be enabled anyway; > this shouldn't enable any new configurations. Well, as I've just said, I don't like this change. I'd very much prefer it if CONFIG_PM_OPS were renamed to CONFIG_PM. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
