Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_PM for ppc64, to allow sysrq o

2005-03-15 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 22:26 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: > For some weird reason, sysrq o is hidden behind CONFIG_PM. > Why? One can power off just fine without that. Can pm_sysrq_init be > moved to a better place? I think it used to be in sysrq.c in 2.4. > > Too bad, with this patch radeonfb fails

Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_PM for ppc64, to allow sysrq o

2005-03-15 Thread Olaf Hering
On Tue, Mar 15, Olaf Hering wrote: > > For some weird reason, sysrq o is hidden behind CONFIG_PM. > Why? One can power off just fine without that. Can pm_sysrq_init be > moved to a better place? I think it used to be in sysrq.c in 2.4. > > Too bad, with this patch radeonfb fails to compile.

[PATCH] CONFIG_PM for ppc64, to allow sysrq o

2005-03-15 Thread Olaf Hering
For some weird reason, sysrq o is hidden behind CONFIG_PM. Why? One can power off just fine without that. Can pm_sysrq_init be moved to a better place? I think it used to be in sysrq.c in 2.4. Too bad, with this patch radeonfb fails to compile. Index: linux-2.6.11-olh/arch/ppc64/Kconfig

[PATCH] CONFIG_PM for ppc64, to allow sysrq o

2005-03-15 Thread Olaf Hering
For some weird reason, sysrq o is hidden behind CONFIG_PM. Why? One can power off just fine without that. Can pm_sysrq_init be moved to a better place? I think it used to be in sysrq.c in 2.4. Too bad, with this patch radeonfb fails to compile. Index: linux-2.6.11-olh/arch/ppc64/Kconfig

Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_PM for ppc64, to allow sysrq o

2005-03-15 Thread Olaf Hering
On Tue, Mar 15, Olaf Hering wrote: For some weird reason, sysrq o is hidden behind CONFIG_PM. Why? One can power off just fine without that. Can pm_sysrq_init be moved to a better place? I think it used to be in sysrq.c in 2.4. Too bad, with this patch radeonfb fails to compile. After

Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_PM for ppc64, to allow sysrq o

2005-03-15 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 22:26 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: For some weird reason, sysrq o is hidden behind CONFIG_PM. Why? One can power off just fine without that. Can pm_sysrq_init be moved to a better place? I think it used to be in sysrq.c in 2.4. Too bad, with this patch radeonfb fails to