Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on

From: Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:47:11 EST

Next message: john stultz: "[PATCH] linux-2.5.45_notsc-warning_A0"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: 2.5.45: NTFS unresolved symbol"
In reply to: Grover, Andrew: "RE: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on"
Next in thread: Jos Hulzink: "Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on"
Reply: Jos Hulzink: "Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> ACPI implements PM but that's not all it implements. Is making CONFIG_PM
> true if ACPI or APM are on a viable option? I think that would more
> accurately reflect reality.
>
> Or can we get rid of CONFIG_PM?

I'm not sure of places that do it off the top of my head, but
CONFIG_PM would save us having to do ugly CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
tests.

Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: john stultz: "[PATCH] linux-2.5.45_notsc-warning_A0"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: 2.5.45: NTFS unresolved symbol"
In reply to: Grover, Andrew: "RE: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on"
Next in thread: Jos Hulzink: "Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on"
Reply: Jos Hulzink: "Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:21 EST