Re: OLPC power management patches - merge for 3.1?

[Daniel Drake]

On 24 July 2011 04:20, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have no objection to merging OLPC patches, but they should build
> without errors.

Agreed! Thanks for reporting the issue.

> Looks like this problem is caused by:
>
> config OLPC_XO1_SCI
>        bool "OLPC XO-1 SCI extras"
>        depends on OLPC && OLPC_XO1_PM && POWER_SUPPLY
>
> or
> config OLPC_XO15_SCI
>        bool "OLPC XO-1.5 SCI extras"
>        depends on OLPC && ACPI && POWER_SUPPLY
>
> In both cases, the 'bool' depends on one or more tristate symbols, so
> the tristates are satisfied if they are =m or =y.  This should work fine
> if these kconfig symbols (listed above) were tristate instead of bool.

In this case, we do need them to be bool options. At least for now. We
tried for a modular design earlier in the review process but it added
too much complexity.

So, whats the best way to fix the Kconfig? Should we:

depends on POWER_SUPPLY=y

or

depends on POWER_SUPPLY
select POWER_SUPPLY

?

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