On 2011-12-13 15:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
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
the code about driver function which kernel
require(drivers/acpi/processor_xen.c ) build into processor.ko.
the code which have more relation with xen
(drivers/xen/acpi_processor.c) did not build into processor.ko.
liang
--
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
