From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Monteiro Basto Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI poweroff fixes for 2.4.26-pre2 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:41:43 +0000 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1080322903.2325.113.camel@darkstar> References: <20040308205444.GH484@elf.ucw.cz> <20040309233325.GA22953@alpha.home.local> <1079279490.10225.10.camel@darkstar> <20040315210729.GA19306@alpha.home.local> <1079389434.3695.2.camel@darkstar> <20040315231927.GA19829@alpha.home.local> <20040322105946.GC1505@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <1080253327.3755.20.camel@darkstar> <20040325222934.GF2179@elf.ucw.cz> <1080255058.4187.1.camel@darkstar> <20040325230037.GK2179@elf.ucw.cz> <1080262910.4144.39.camel@darkstar> Reply-To: sergiomb-hHo3WeeoaswVhHzd4jOs4w@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1080262910.4144.39.camel-4/PLUo9XfK8@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Pavel Machek Cc: Willy Tarreau , Bruno Ducrot , acpi-devel , Len Brown List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Sorry about that patch this really doesn't make sence, in kernels 2.4.x now in drives/acpi/Config.in if [ "$CONFIG_ACPI" =3D "y" ]; then ACPI_SLEEP =3D y if acpi support (CONFIG_ACPI) is equal to no =3D> the drives/acpi/system.c is not compiled at all. the only thing just don't make sense (for me) is permission to compile ACPI without CONFIG_PM ? in conclusion without any patch acpi_system_save_state never is "return ok", so you can ignore my patch. and arch/i386/config.in shouldn't be like this: if [ "$CONFIG_PM" =3D "y" ]; then source drivers/acpi/Config.in fi thanks=20 I will investe more ... On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 01:01, S=E9rgio Monteiro Basto wrote: > Preamble : > I can be confused, but far as I know, you propose a patch for a _very > wrong_ thing, ( I believe that you are right ). > acpi_system_save_state is one reality, at least in kernel 2.4.26-pre2, > but what you propose looks like, that just resolve half of the problem. > if it a recently patch that made this problem I don't know. >=20 > Seeing the code yes, you are right. > I don't know if as make any sense to you but, what do you think put > acpi_system_save_state under #ifdef CONFIG_PM instead of CONFIG_SLEEP ? > like this=20 >=20 > thanks > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 23:00, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > >=20 > > > so acpi_system_save_state(state) does do nothing at all ? > > > or does return nothing at all ? > >=20 > > IIRC there was patch that made acpi_system_save_state() do nothing at > > all if !CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. I'm arguing thats very wrong. > > Pavel --=20 S=E9rgio M. B. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click