Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PM=n)

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PM=n)

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:15:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Changes since 20100505:


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'

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

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PCI=n)

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:15:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Changes since 20100505:


When CONFIG_PCI is not enabled:

arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:1034: error: 'pci_bus_type' undeclared

drivers/acpi/reboot.c:30: error:implicit declaration of function 'pci_find_bus'
drivers/acpi/reboot.c:30: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
drivers/acpi/reboot.c:38: error:implicit declaration of function 'pci_bus_write_config_byte'

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

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

[Len Brown]

> 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?

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PCI=n)

[Len Brown]

> When CONFIG_PCI is not enabled:
> 
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:1034: error: 'pci_bus_type' undeclared
> 
> drivers/acpi/reboot.c:30: error:implicit declaration of function 'pci_find_bus'
> drivers/acpi/reboot.c:30: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
> drivers/acpi/reboot.c:38: error:implicit declaration of function 'pci_bus_write_config_byte'

CONFIG_ACPI depends on CONFIG_PCI, so this file should not be build with 
CONFIG_PCI=n.

Please let me know how you were able to generate this illegal 
configuration.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

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

[Randy Dunlap]

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

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

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PCI=n)

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Len Brown wrote:

> > When CONFIG_PCI is not enabled:
> > 
> > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:1034: error: 'pci_bus_type' undeclared
> > 
> > drivers/acpi/reboot.c:30: error:implicit declaration of function 'pci_find_bus'
> > drivers/acpi/reboot.c:30: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
> > drivers/acpi/reboot.c:38: error:implicit declaration of function 'pci_bus_write_config_byte'
> 
> CONFIG_ACPI depends on CONFIG_PCI, so this file should not be build with 
> CONFIG_PCI=n.
> 
> Please let me know how you were able to generate this illegal 
> configuration.


Same TPM kconfig that selects ACPI without any other qualifications.

In 50 randconfig builds, 12 build failures were due to that one bad kconfig.

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

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

[James Morris]

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.

I've reverted:

b89e66e1e396f7b5436af154e58209320cc08aed
"TPM: ACPI/PNP dependency removal"

a674fa46c79ffa37995bd1c8e4daa2b3be5a95ae
"ima: remove ACPI dependency"


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



- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>

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

[Randy Dunlap]

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 ***