Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on

[Bill Davidsen]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, David Woodhouse wrote:

> 
> [e-mail] said:
> >  More to the point, define CONFIG_PM as ( CONFIG_APM | CONFIG_ACPI )
> > and be able to easily handle any new PM method on whatever hardware.
> > PM is not limited to Intel hardware. Make a new HAS_PM if reusing
> > CONFIG_PM creates problems.

Isn't this what I said?
> 
> Er, there's no reason why PM even on Intel hardware should be restricted to
> ACPI and APM.

That's what I proposed. Define CONFIG_PM as what we have now, or define a
new HAS_PM define to indicate that PM is present in some form, and be able
to add other schemes when/if they happen ("easily handle any new PM
method").
Ex:
 #define HAS_PM ( CONFIG_ACPI | CONFIG_APM | CONFIG_IMTU )
One master symbol to indicate that PM is present in any form.

>           With appropriate chipset documentation there's nothing to stop
> people from writing proper driver code to enter sleep states, etc. for i386 
> chipsets just as we have for other architectures.

Which could be handled by HAS_PM_SLEEP, HAS_PM_SUSPEND, HAS_PM_POWEROFF
and the like, if that seems desirable.

I can't see this being totally non-messy, but the config could probably be
clever and grey out anything which can't be done at all for the hardware
selected.

-- 
bill davidsen <[e-mail]>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.