On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 02:21:52AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 21 of February 2008, Frans Pop wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 20 of February 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > >> So, has it to be so hard? It seems not - at least in good old times... > > > > > > Something in APM uses some code from drivers/base/power/main.c that > > > depends on PM_SLEEP. > > > > Sure, but that does not make Jarek's point invalid. From a user PoV APM is a > > high-level configuration option. That is what he wants. > > It should thus be easily accessible and not be buried beneath a lot of > > other, much more technical, options.
Probably Frans is right: this should be my point... But I'm not so "greedy", and I would be happy if it were at least more visible. It simply seems to me quite not obvious to even think about turning SUSPEND on when I have problems with a basic acpi function. Even more interesting question is why this APM or PM_SLEEP dependency on SUSPEND (or HIBERNATION) isn't visible with "/" searching: PM_SLEEP looks like some "hidden" option - that's why I tried first to find some comment in arch/ instead of simply reading Kconfig. > > Could this maybe be solved by making APM automatically 'select' some options > > instead of 'depending' on them? > > That, unfortunately, doesn't work. > > IMO the solution might be to separate the APM suspend code from the rest of > the > APM code and make it depend on (PM_SUSPEND && APM). ...Or at least to mention APM in SUSPEND title and description. Actually, this is really strange: both SUSPEND and PM_SLEEP have default = y. So it seems they are intended to be more "advertised" than they are? Thanks & regards, Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/