On Wednesday 18 April 2007 20:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > > > > > p.p.s. patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that > > > > myself always welcome. :-) > > > > > > well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time > > > and done nothing about it. I did ping davej when he broke it, > > > but his to-do list is probably even longer than mine. > > > > ping timeout. > > > > I don't recall too many of the details surrounding those changes, > > but I certainly won't stand in the way of anyone trying to fix it. > > It sounds like you and Robert are on top of it, or do you want me to > > poke at it ? > > well, before i get even more confused by what was (once upon a time) a > fairly straightforward removal patch, the first obvious question is -- > are there *any* circumstances that *require* a config selection of > CONFIG_PM_LEGACY, as opposed to a selection of APM and/or ACPI? if > there are, then it can't simply be removed. my original patch > submission was based on the assumption that absolutely no one needed > the legacy stuff anymore and absolutely everything related to it could > be scrapped. > > so, first things first: what *needs* legacy PM at the moment? > > rday > > p.s. i'm confused by the header file include/linux/pm_legacy.h, > especially this part: > > ======================== > #ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY > ... > # else /* CONFIG_PM_LEGACY */ > > #define PM_IS_ACTIVE() 0 > ... > #endif > ======================= > > so the macro "PM_IS_ACTIVE()" represents whether *legacy* PM has > been selected. in other words, it makes no (apparent) sense that the > value of that macro would represent some kind of contention mechanism > between APM and ACPI, which is entirely independent from the legacy > stuff. right?
yep, the problem is that PM_IS_ACTIVE() got mixed up in CONFIG_PM_LEGACY. how about i send a patch to fix this first -- when i get back tomorrow. and then the CONFIG_PM_LEGACY patch will not be tangled in this? -Len - 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/
