From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] linux-next: Tree for May 6 (acpi: PM=n)
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005061623060.15286@localhost.localdomain>
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
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-reply-to: <20100506080538.b566f50e.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

> 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