On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Jos Hulzink wrote:
> On Friday 01 November 2002 21:31, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:21:56PM +0100, Jos Hulzink wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Whilst they can't both run at the same time, it's perfectly possible
> > (and useful) to build a kernel with both included. ACPI will quit
> > if APM is already running, so booting with apm=off turns the same
> > kernel into 'ACPI mode'
> Hmzz.. in that case I vote for dropping CONFIG_PM in favour of
> CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI, even though it requires some more typing for
> the programmers. (I'm no ACPI programmer, so I don't care ;-)
More to the point, define CONFIG_PM as ( CONFIG_APM | CONFIG_ACPI ) and be
able to easily handle any new PM method on whatever hardware. PM is not
limited to Intel hardware. Make a new HAS_PM if reusing CONFIG_PM creates
problems.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- 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 - 22:00:40 EST