On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:12:39PM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > I realize now I didn't answer your original question. > The reason ACPI now depends on PM is that > it makes it easier for us to do a more orderly shutdown -- > acpi registers as a device so it can do some stuff > upon the PM device shutdowns -- before interrupts are disabled. > > I think with all the twisty turney passages > related to the suspend states, poweroff, sys-req, and now kexec, > that it is best if we can keep the code paths as > common as possible or some of them will never get the > testing needed to prevent them from getting broken. > > Also, it is now common practice to include PM && ACPI together > in the x86 world. Though technically one could have > ACPI w/o PM and you'd have lost only ACPI_SLEEP, virtually > nobody seems to use/depend-on that combination.
OK, that makes sense. I see now that Jesse has already sent a patch to allow CONFIG_PM on sn2, so we'll be fine as soon as that gets merged. - 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/
