From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PM=n) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:32:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20100506133215.f5dc579a.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> References: <20100506151502.f97afe54.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100506080538.b566f50e.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown , James Morris Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org 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 ***