On Friday 01 November 2002 20:47, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > ACPI implements PM but that's not all it implements. Is making CONFIG_PM
> > true if ACPI or APM are on a viable option? I think that would more
> > accurately reflect reality.
> >
> > Or can we get rid of CONFIG_PM?
>
> I'm not sure of places that do it off the top of my head, but
> CONFIG_PM would save us having to do ugly CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
> tests.
This seems to be true from what I have seen of the source so far.
I'm thinking....
ACPI is more than Power Management. The fact that a system supports ACPI does
not mean that the user wants to use power management. On the other hand, I
see no reason why a user does NOT want a system to auto poweroff, and sleep
and suspend are easy to configure in BIOS, or by linux tools. (Does Linux
take over the BIOS settings for suspend & sleep ? Don't use them, so
donnow....) What I wanna say: I think it is okay if CONFIG_PM is replaced by
CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
Other issue: Are ACPI and APM not mutually exclusive ? If so, I would propose
a selection box: <ACPI> <APM> <none> with related options shown below. Hmzz..
there the issue of the fact that ACPI is more than power management shows up
again.
And well... CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI might look ugly to you, I think it isn't
that bad, besides, you gain a lot from the configuration side. IMHO
configuring the kernel has become hard enough with the new input layer
already :( Maybe it is time for a "[ ] show expert options" in the
configuration tool...
Jos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:21 EST