>>> On 12.12.11 at 18:29, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 09:24:23AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 30.11.11 at 18:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile >> > @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_CUSTOM_METHOD)+= custom_method.o >> > # processor has its own "processor." module_param namespace >> > processor-y := processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o >> > processor-y += processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o >> > +processor-y += processor_xen.o >> >> This should minimally be processor-$(CONFIG_XEN), with other things >> adjusted as necessary. > > I was under the impression that this was required to get the > processor_xen.ko > to be a module. Otherwise it would only compile as built-in. processor_xen.ko? Why not have all the code go into processor.ko? (And the original construct didn't aim in that direction either.) Jan -- 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
