From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergio Monteiro Basto Subject: Re: CONFIG_PM, CONFIG_ACPI, CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: <1110443886.5721.18.camel@bastov> References: <1110394955.9337.48.camel@d845pe> <1110406503.8870.36.camel@desktop.cunningham.myip.net.au> Reply-To: sergio-qOf5bGQp09kptuEoxK/DLR2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-BRBA428OMdHbD5xvaZXa" In-Reply-To: <1110406503.8870.36.camel-r49W/1Cwd2ff0s6lnCXPX/uOuaPYTxhvJwvTLr3MMZM@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: ncunningham-3EexvZdKGZRWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org Cc: Len Brown , ACPI Developers List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org --=-BRBA428OMdHbD5xvaZXa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I had write about it on Apr/May 2004, Because "Accidentally, I compile ACPI without CONFIG_PM on one Dell something dual Pentium III and power off didn't work."=20 For me this was a bug that has been introduced when ACPI enter in 2.4 because, before that, if I recall correctly =20 "we couldn't compile ACPI without define CONFIG_PM" Conclusion, to simplify, on kernel configuration, I propose to force that (for compile ACPI we need define CONFIG_PM) (again?) with this little patch on attach.=20 thanks, On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 09:15 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. >=20 > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 06:02, Len Brown wrote: > > Today it is possible to build with > > CONFIG_PM=3Dn > > CONFIG_ACPI=3Dy > > (however, CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP does depend on CONFIG_PM) > >=20 > > Seems that the solution to the kexec poweroff issue > > is simpler if ACPI can depend on CONFIG_PM being present: > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D4041 > >=20 > > Why shouldn't CONFIG_ACPI depend on CONFIG_PM > > Why shouldn't CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP simply be CONFIG_ACPI > >=20 > > I can't think of any good reasons not to simplify here, can you? >=20 > That sounds confusing to me. I thought that ACPI was much more than jus= t > power management. Doesn't it include IRQ routing, device enumeration an= d > so on too? yes, but we can say "ACPI without PM doesn't exist" >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Nigel --=20 S=E9rgio M.B. --=-BRBA428OMdHbD5xvaZXa Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=configopti-24.diff Content-Type: text/x-patch; name=configopti-24.diff; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --- linux-2.4.26s/arch/i386/config.in.orig 2004-04-29 23:38:38.000000000 +0100 +++ linux-2.4.26s/arch/i386/config.in 2004-04-29 23:40:58.000000000 +0100 @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ bool 'Power Management support' CONFIG_PM dep_tristate ' Advanced Power Management BIOS support' CONFIG_APM $CONFIG_PM -if [ "$CONFIG_APM" != "n" ]; then +if [ "$CONFIG_APM" != "n" -a "$CONFIG_PM" = "y" ]; then bool ' Ignore USER SUSPEND' CONFIG_APM_IGNORE_USER_SUSPEND bool ' Enable PM at boot time' CONFIG_APM_DO_ENABLE bool ' Make CPU Idle calls when idle' CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE @@ -370,7 +370,9 @@ bool ' Use real mode APM BIOS call to power off' CONFIG_APM_REAL_MODE_POWER_OFF fi -source drivers/acpi/Config.in +if [ "$CONFIG_PM" = "y" ]; then + source drivers/acpi/Config.in +fi endmenu --=-BRBA428OMdHbD5xvaZXa-- ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click