On 05/06/10 16:27, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Len Brown wrote: >> >>>> When CONFIG_PM is not set: >>>> >>>> drivers/built-in.o: In function `acpi_init': >>>> bus.c:(.init.text+0x2d84): undefined reference to `pm_flags' >>>> bus.c:(.init.text+0x2d91): undefined reference to `pm_flags' >>> >>> CONFIG_ACPI depends on CONFIG_PM, >>> so acpi/bus.c should not be compiled for CONFIG_PM=n >>> >>> Hmm, is is somebody doing something strange, like "select ACPI" >>> without guaranteeing that all of ACPI's dependencies are satisfied? >> >> Oh, thanks for the clue. >> >> That would be a patch that I commented on and was ignored, >> but James Morris merged it anyway. Now it should be dropped. >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/4/379 > > You weren't ignored. Mimi responded and mentioned a subsequent patch, > after which, there was no further discussion. OK. But merging a known bad patch doesn't make much sense to me. > I've reverted: > > b89e66e1e396f7b5436af154e58209320cc08aed > "TPM: ACPI/PNP dependency removal" > > a674fa46c79ffa37995bd1c8e4daa2b3be5a95ae > "ima: remove ACPI dependency" > Thanks. > > Note: any further ACPI-related changes here should have acks from > linux-acpi folk. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
