Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:51:17 +0200 | From | Tomas Szepe <> | Subject | Re: [TRIVIAL] sanitize power management config menus, take two |
| |
> [mochel@osdl.org] > > > > > o only enable cpufreq options if power management is selected > > > > o don't put cpufreq options in a separate submenu > > > > > > Yes, but what I do not understand is why cpufreq need power management. > > > > Because it is a power management option. :) > > > > CONFIG_PM is a dummy option, it does not link any code into the kernel > > by itself. > > Actually, it does: > > ./arch/arm/kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o > ./arch/arm/mach-pxa/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o sleep.o > ./arch/arm/mach-sa1100/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o sleep.o > ./arch/i386/kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += suspend.o > ./drivers/pci/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += power.o > ./kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += pm.o power/ > > But, I agree with your change anyway.
Trouble is, the same goes for ACPI -- it doesn't require that CONFIG_PM code be present.
I think the correct x86 solution would be to introduce a real dummy option for the menus, and imply CONFIG_PM if APM or swsusp (the two options that seem to actually need CONFIG_PM code) is enabled.
-- Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |