Messages in this thread | | | From | Jos Hulzink <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on | Date | Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:21:56 +0100 |
| |
On Friday 01 November 2002 20:47, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote: > > ACPI implements PM but that's not all it implements. Is making CONFIG_PM > > true if ACPI or APM are on a viable option? I think that would more > > accurately reflect reality. > > > > Or can we get rid of CONFIG_PM? > > I'm not sure of places that do it off the top of my head, but > CONFIG_PM would save us having to do ugly CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI > tests.
This seems to be true from what I have seen of the source so far.
I'm thinking....
ACPI is more than Power Management. The fact that a system supports ACPI does not mean that the user wants to use power management. On the other hand, I see no reason why a user does NOT want a system to auto poweroff, and sleep and suspend are easy to configure in BIOS, or by linux tools. (Does Linux take over the BIOS settings for suspend & sleep ? Don't use them, so donnow....) What I wanna say: I think it is okay if CONFIG_PM is replaced by CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
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.
And well... CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI might look ugly to you, I think it isn't that bad, besides, you gain a lot from the configuration side. IMHO configuring the kernel has become hard enough with the new input layer already :( Maybe it is time for a "[ ] show expert options" in the configuration tool...
Jos
- 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/
| |