On 2/21/08, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > On 2/20/08, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Saturday 16 February 2008 14:47, Kamalesh Babulal wrote: > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > > The 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 kernel with randconfig build option, fails > > > > to build on x86_64 machine > > > > > > > > CC drivers/acpi/osl.o > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:60:38: error: empty filename in #include > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c: In function 'acpi_os_table_override': > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: 'AmlCode' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > > > > drivers/acpi/osl.c:399: error: for each function it appears in.) > > > > make[2]: *** [drivers/acpi/osl.o] Error 1 > > > > make[1]: *** [drivers/acpi] Error 2 > > > > make: *** [drivers] Error 2 > > > > > > > > # > > > > # Automatically generated make config: don't edit > > > > # Linux kernel version: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 > > > > # Sun Feb 17 08:07:17 2008 > > > > # > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT=y > > > > CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_DSDT_FILE="" > > > > > > > > > garbage in, garbage out. > > > > garbage explicitly *allowed* by Kconfig in this case, though. > > > > > If you don't give this build option a file name where AmlCode lives, > > > then the build will be unable to find AmlCode[]. > > > > > > http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/overridingDSDT.php > > > > So we have a .config option whose sole purpose is to use another > > .config option? That seems ... less than ideal. Is there not some > > Kconfig voodoo we can do to only require the one option? Maybe > > something like how CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE is done? Adding Sam to the > > Cc, in case he has any ideas. > > > Make sure STANDALONE is y for your randconfig builds. > See README for examples. Hrm, if this is needed for randconfig to work, perhaps randconfig itself should somehow be specifying it? > STANALONE is there exactly to prevent the above but we cannot > control randconfig. While setting STANDALONE does fix the above, it doesn't answer the more basic question I had -- do we really need both .config options in this case? If it's simply a case of "That's how it is, won't be fixed, there are higher priorities", that's good enough by me. Just seems a shame that we have an option to enable another option, which is required for the first option to be sensible -- seems like we should only need the second option... Thanks, Nish - 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
