> email@example.com said:
> > 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.
Isn't this what I said?
> Er, there's no reason why PM even on Intel hardware should be restricted to
> ACPI and APM.
That's what I proposed. Define CONFIG_PM as what we have now, or define a
new HAS_PM define to indicate that PM is present in some form, and be able
to add other schemes when/if they happen ("easily handle any new PM
#define HAS_PM ( CONFIG_ACPI | CONFIG_APM | CONFIG_IMTU )
One master symbol to indicate that PM is present in any form.
> With appropriate chipset documentation there's nothing to stop
> people from writing proper driver code to enter sleep states, etc. for i386
> chipsets just as we have for other architectures.
Which could be handled by HAS_PM_SLEEP, HAS_PM_SUSPEND, HAS_PM_POWEROFF
and the like, if that seems desirable.
I can't see this being totally non-messy, but the config could probably be
clever and grey out anything which can't be done at all for the hardware
-- bill davidsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/