Subject: Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PM=n)

From: Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 16:38:57 -0700

On 05/06/10 16:27, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Len Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> When CONFIG_PM is not set:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/built-in.o: In function `acpi_init':
>>>> bus.c:(.init.text+0x2d84): undefined reference to `pm_flags'
>>>> bus.c:(.init.text+0x2d91): undefined reference to `pm_flags'
>>>
>>> CONFIG_ACPI depends on CONFIG_PM,
>>> so acpi/bus.c should not be compiled for CONFIG_PM=n
>>>
>>> Hmm, is is somebody doing something strange, like "select ACPI"
>>> without guaranteeing that all of ACPI's dependencies are satisfied?
>>
>> Oh, thanks for the clue.
>>
>> That would be a patch that I commented on and was ignored,
>> but James Morris merged it anyway.  Now it should be dropped.
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/4/379
> 
> You weren't ignored.  Mimi responded and mentioned a subsequent patch, 
> after which, there was no further discussion.

OK.  But merging a known bad patch doesn't make much sense to me.

> I've reverted:
> 
> b89e66e1e396f7b5436af154e58209320cc08aed
> "TPM: ACPI/PNP dependency removal"
> 
> a674fa46c79ffa37995bd1c8e4daa2b3be5a95ae
> "ima: remove ACPI dependency"
> 

Thanks.

> 
> Note: any further ACPI-related changes here should have acks from 
> linux-acpi folk.

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***