Re: [BUILD_FAILURE] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - Build Failure at acpi_os

Sam Ravnborg
2008-02-22T18:08:05Z

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:38:52PM -0800, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> On 2/21/08, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 2/20/08, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 16 February 2008 14:47, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> > > > > Hi Andrew,
> > > > >
> > > > > The 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 kernel with randconfig build option, fails
> > > > > to build on x86_64 machine
> > > > >
> > > > > CC drivers/acpi/osl.o
> > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:60:38: error: empty filename in #include
> > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_table_override':
> > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: 'AmlCode' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: for each function it appears in.)
> > > > > make[2]: *** [drivers/acpi/osl.o] Error 1
> > > > > make[1]: *** [drivers/acpi] Error 2
> > > > > make: *** [drivers] Error 2
> > > > >
> > > > > #
> > > > > # Automatically generated make config: don't edit
> > > > > # Linux kernel version: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1
> > > > > # Sun Feb 17 08:07:17 2008
> > > > > #
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT=y
> > > > > CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT_FILE=""
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > garbage in, garbage out.
> > >
> > > garbage explicitly *allowed* by Kconfig in this case, though.
> > >
> > > > If you don't give this build option a file name where AmlCode lives,
> > > > then the build will be unable to find AmlCode[].
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/overridingDSDT.php
> > >
> > > So we have a .config option whose sole purpose is to use another
> > > .config option? That seems ... less than ideal. Is there not some
> > > Kconfig voodoo we can do to only require the one option? Maybe
> > > something like how CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE is done? Adding Sam to the
> > > Cc, in case he has any ideas.
> >
> >
> > Make sure STANDALONE is y for your randconfig builds.
> > See README for examples.
>
> Hrm, if this is needed for randconfig to work, perhaps randconfig
> itself should somehow be specifying it?
>
> > STANALONE is there exactly to prevent the above but we cannot
> > control randconfig.
>
> While setting STANDALONE does fix the above, it doesn't answer the
> more basic question I had -- do we really need both .config options in
> this case? If it's simply a case of "That's how it is, won't be fixed,
> there are higher priorities", that's good enough by me. Just seems a
> shame that we have an option to enable another option, which is
> required for the first option to be sensible -- seems like we should
> only need the second option...

I really do not see what problem you are trying to address.

STANDALONE is there as an easy way to turn of the options that requires
sensible input to make a kernel compile.

And that makes _perfect_ sense when you do randconfig builds.

Sam