From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262896AbUEGETN (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2004 00:19:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262914AbUEGETN (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2004 00:19:13 -0400 Received: from fmr10.intel.com ([192.55.52.30]:32184 "EHLO fmsfmr003.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262896AbUEGETK (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2004 00:19:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] can we compile ACPI without define CONFIG_PM ? From: Len Brown To: sergiomb@netcabo.pt Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Developers In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1083903538.2296.248.camel@dhcppc4> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 07 May 2004 00:18:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Never occurred to me to build ACPI w/o CONFIG_PM... There are #ifdef CONFIG_PM in the acpi code, so I guess this was on purpose, but it makes ACPI a lot less interesting. But I'm inclined to leave 2.4 alone except for real system failures. The only clean-up I'm really interested in doing in 2.4 is when it makes maintenance via backporting from 2.6 easier. -Len