Re: [ACPI] Re: 2.6.12-rc1-mm3

[Jason Uhlenkott <jasonuhl@sgi.com>]

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.