Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:43:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:43:24 -0500 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([213.152.47.19]:9602 "EHLO noodles.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:43:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:47:11 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: "'Jos Hulzink'" , Robert Varga , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on Message-ID: <20021101194711.GB714@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Grover, Andrew" , 'Jos Hulzink' , Robert Varga , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 726 Lines: 20 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/