Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] can we compile ACPI without define CONFIG_PM ?

[Sérgio Monteiro Basto]

Hi , Len 
Thanks for replying
So:

1 - ACPI w/o CONFIG_PM (is not supported)

2 - If accidentally we configure ACPI w/o CONFIG_PM. I tested and
doesn't power off correctly (at least on one Dell Precision 410). 

3 - It is easy make this error in configuration, especial if we try use
.config from early versions.

4 - The patch doesn't hurt at all, just force to one correct
configuration.

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 05:18, Len Brown wrote:
> Never occurred to me to build ACPI w/o CONFIG_PM...
> There are #ifdef CONFIG_PM in the acpi code, so I guess this was on
> purpose, but it makes ACPI a lot less interesting.
> 
> But I'm inclined to leave 2.4 alone except for real system failures. 
> The only clean-up I'm really interested in doing in 2.4 is when it makes
> maintenance via backporting from 2.6 easier.

I understand very well your point, and I don't check in kernel 2.6.5
Config.in, neither check in others architectures.
But I vote for apply this patch, because can avoid problems with
power-off machines.

Off-topic: I am testing last acpi-2.4.27 patch and it ok, no complains.

I resend the patch just in case.
thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.
--- linux-2.4.26s/arch/i386/config.in.orig	2004-04-29 23:38:38.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.4.26s/arch/i386/config.in	2004-04-29 23:40:58.000000000 +0100
@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@
 bool 'Power Management support' CONFIG_PM
 
 dep_tristate '  Advanced Power Management BIOS support' CONFIG_APM $CONFIG_PM
-if [ "$CONFIG_APM" != "n" ]; then
+if [ "$CONFIG_APM" != "n" -a "$CONFIG_PM" = "y" ]; then
    bool '    Ignore USER SUSPEND' CONFIG_APM_IGNORE_USER_SUSPEND
    bool '    Enable PM at boot time' CONFIG_APM_DO_ENABLE
    bool '    Make CPU Idle calls when idle' CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE
@@ -370,7 +370,9 @@
    bool '    Use real mode APM BIOS call to power off' CONFIG_APM_REAL_MODE_POWER_OFF
 fi
 
-source drivers/acpi/Config.in
+if [ "$CONFIG_PM" = "y" ]; then
+	source drivers/acpi/Config.in
+fi
 
 endmenu