Re: [PATCH] create CONFIG_SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 08:38, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > Without this change, it is possible to build CONFIG_HIBERNATE
> > on all !SMP architectures, but not necessarily their SMP versions.
> 
> Did you want to say "CONFIG_SUSPEND"?
> 
> > I don't know for sure if the architecture list under SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> > is correct.  For now it simply matches the list for
> > SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE.
> 
> I do not think it is.

No, it's not.

> > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  Kconfig |    7 ++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> > index 412859f..ccf6576 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig
> > +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> > @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ config PM_TRACE
> >  	CAUTION: this option will cause your machine's real-time clock to be
> >  	set to an invalid time after a resume.
> >  
> > +config SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE
> > +	bool
> > +	depends on (X86 && !X86_VOYAGER) || (PPC64 && (PPC_PSERIES ||
> 
> At least ARM can do suspend, too... probably others.

ARM, frv, sh, mips and blackfin (AFAICS).

> I was under impression that SUSPEND is "supported" by all the architectures,
> just some of them veto it at runtime (using pm_ops or how was it renamed).

Historically, suspend support was implied by CONFIG_PM.

For now, it's not much point in using CONFIG_PM at all if the arch in question
doesn't support suspending or hibernation, so I thought it would be better to
leave it unrestricted.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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/