On 02/09/11 10:40, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:31:29AM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> Raphael's patch will turn on CONFIG_PM in the correct circumstances, and >> leave it off when not needed by other config options. That means that >> the size overhead will _not_ be an issue for me because CONFIG_PM >> will not be enabled when not needed. > > That's not the issue you seemed to be raising, though. While PM is now > turned on by PM_SLEEP that'll end up getting turned on by default due to > the dependency on SUSPEND - you appeared to be raising the concern that > this could happen and surprise users. No, that is not my concern. I was saying that Raphael's patches do not trigger any concern from me. My concern was that in your very first email that started this thread, you wrote: On 02/07/11 04:22, Mark Brown wrote: > It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently > resource constrained to want to compile out power management support > and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so. > Since having the configuration option requires non-zero effort to > maintain, with ifdefery in most drivers, but it is used with vanishing > rarity it is simpler to just remove the option. and my understanding of this proposal was a goal to remove the ability to have CONFIG_PM disabled, which results in increased memory usage for some configurations. -Frank _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
