{Spam?} Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> 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.

ah, just took a closer look at this.  from <linux/pm_legacy.h>:
...
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
...
#else
#define PM_IS_ACTIVE() 0
...
#endif

so if you choose not to configure legacy PM, that macro equates to
false and that "if" construct in arch/i386/kernel/apm.c doesn't come
into play, anyway.

so i re-iterate what i posted in my earlier e-mail -- if APM and ACPI
want to avoid clashing, they have to do it without invoking anything
related to legacy PM.

rday

p.s.  if someone wants to take that previously-submitted patch
proposal and tidy it up and submit it officially, feel free.

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================