On Saturday, 28 July 2007 00:25, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:55:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > My point is we have ACPI dependent on PM, so if you want ACPI, you end > > > up with all of the STR stuff built in, which is what you don't like (if I > > > understand that correctly). If we have CONFIG_SUSPEND, you'll be able to > > > choose ACPI alone. :-) > > > > Good point. > > > > Anyway, I think the ACPI problem really is as trivial as the following > > three-liner removal fix. If the user doesn't want suspend, ACPI shouldn't > > force it on him. > > > > A nicer fix might be to also make some of the ACPI helper routines depend > > on whether they are needed or not (which in turn will depend on whether > > suspend support has been compiled into the kernel), but quite frankly, > > that's secondary at least for me. > > > > So if we have a few ACPI routines that will never get called (because we > > don't even enable the interfaces that would *cause* them to be called), I > > don't think that's a huge problem. It's a beauty wart, but nobody really > > cares (and it's even something that we could get the compiler to optimize > > away for us if we really cared). > > > > Linus > > > > --- > > Don't force-enable suspend/hibernate support just for ACPI > > > > It's a totally independent decision for the user whether he wants > > suspend and/or hibernation support, and ACPI shouldn't care. > > > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 3 --- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > index 251344c..22b401b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > @@ -11,9 +11,6 @@ menuconfig ACPI > > depends on PCI > > depends on PM > > select PNP > > - # for sleep > > - select HOTPLUG_CPU if X86 && SMP > > - select SUSPEND_SMP if X86 && SMP > > default y > > ---help--- > > Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for > > The dependency of SUSPEND_SMP on HOTPLUG_CPU is quite unintuitive, so > what about something like the patch below? > > This should address a main issue behind Len's patch. > > cu > Adrian > > > <-- snip --> > > > An implementation detail of the suspend code that is not intuitive for > the user is the HOTPLUG_CPU dependency of SOFTWARE_SUSPEND if SMP. > > This patch changes SOFTWARE_SUSPEND if SMP to select HOTPLUG_CPU instead > of depending on it. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > kernel/power/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig > @@ -72,9 +72,22 @@ config PM_TRACE > CAUTION: this option will cause your machine's real-time clock to be > set to an invalid time after a resume. > > +config SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE > + bool > + depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES || PPC_PMAC)) > + depends on SMP > + default y > + > +config SUSPEND_SMP > + bool > + depends on SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE && SOFTWARE_SUSPEND > + select HOTPLUG_CPU > + default y
That should not depend on SOFTWARE_SUSPEND (it's equivalent to HIBERNATION). Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
