On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:19:16PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 10:58, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > The ACPI poweroff code is inside a #ifdef CONFIG_PM, that was added on
> > commit b35c67a46b025e8dc320b59fbe5c283094e1d7f5. The #ifdef is not
> > necessary because the poweroff code compiles and works even if
> > CONFIG_PM is disabled. This patch removes the #ifdef around the code.
>
> the patch is correct, but the comment is not,
> as it should not be possible to build CONFIG_ACPI w/o CONFIG_PM,
I have a patched tree (test tree the xen patches) where CONFIG_ACPI
builds without CONFIG_PM. But I have sent this upstream anyway because
not being able to compile CONFIG_ACPI without CONFIG_PM is another reason
to not have the #ifdef.
I could be more clear on the comment. I didn't mean that CONFIG_ACPI
works without CONFIG_PM out of the box, but that specifically the poweroff
code would compile and work even without CONFIG_PM (but, yes, only if
compiling ACPI without CONFIG_PM was possible, like in the tree I am
working on).
Should I correct the comment and resend?
>
> -Len
>
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/sleep/poweroff.c | 4 ----
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep/poweroff.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep/poweroff.c
> > index d9801ef..5d6ba10 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/poweroff.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/poweroff.c
> > @@ -37,8 +37,6 @@ #endif
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > -
> > void acpi_power_off(void)
> > {
> > /* acpi_sleep_prepare(ACPI_STATE_S5) should have already been called */
> > @@ -94,5 +92,3 @@ static int acpi_poweroff_init(void)
> > }
> >
> > late_initcall(acpi_poweroff_init);
> > -
> > -#endif /* CONFIG_PM */
--
Eduardo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
