On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to
> > > make sure that only one of ACPI and APM get initialized ...
> >
> > i don't see how that has anything to do with removing legacy PM
> > support. you can select both ACPI and APM *now*. if that's a bad
> > thing, then fixing it is a completely independent issue.
>
> Except your patch removes this hunk:
>
> @@ -2264,14 +2248,6 @@ static int __init apm_init(void)
> apm_info.disabled = 1;
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> - if (PM_IS_ACTIVE()) {
> - printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: overridden by ACPI.\n");
> - apm_info.disabled = 1;
> - return -ENODEV;
> - }
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
> - pm_active = 1;
> -#endif
>
> in apm.c and a similar piece of the ACPI initialisation that prevented
> one initialising if the other had already initialised.
you have a point, but note that the macro "PM_IS_ACTIVE" is *defined*
in the header file "linux/pm_legacy.h". so if that macro is still
essential, its definition will have to be moved elsewhere, no?
my approach was to rip out everything that seemed to be related
to pm_legacy.h, so if that macro disappears, then any references to it
must similarly disappear.
can someone clarify this? if only one of APM or ACPI can be enabled,
they should find a way to agree on that without needing legacy code to
do it.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
