Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 19 (drm/i915)

Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-06-24T22:43:54Z

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 02:43:02 PM Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On 06/18/14 23:16, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> The powerpc allyesconfig is again broken more than usual.
> >>
> >> Changes since 20140618:
> >>
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> > CONFIG_ACPI is not enabled.
> >
> > CC drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.o
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c: In function 'i915_drm_freeze':
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:547:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'acpi_target_system_state' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:547:36: error: 'ACPI_STATE_S3' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:547:36: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> > CC net/dccp/qpolicy.o
> > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > make[5]: *** [drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.o] Error 1
>
> Thanks for the report, we'll fix it.
>
> Can anyone explain why include/linux/acpi_bus.h has #ifdef
> CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP and conditional build for a dummy inline version of
> acpi_target_system_state(), *but* that does not get included or used if
> CONFIG_ACPI=n? Additionally, the combination of CONFIG_ACPI=y and
> CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=n does not seem to work at all.

These two things look like bugs to me. Most likely not tested thoruoughly
enough.

> So we'll really have to sprinkle #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI all over, instead of
> neatly using the dummy versions that someone has gone through the
> trouble of adding?

No, we don't have to.

Rafael