linux-kernel - Re: OLPC power management patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:13:23 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: OLPC power management patches - merge for 3.1?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:59:20 +0100 Daniel Drake wrote:

> On 24 July 2011 04:20, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> 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:

If I knew a good solution, I would have posted it.

> depends on POWER_SUPPLY=y

You could do that.

> or
> 
> depends on POWER_SUPPLY
> select POWER_SUPPLY
> 
> ?

You can't do both of those AFAIK -- and it already depends on POWER_SUPPLY.
I guess you could remove "depends on POWER_SUPPLY" and add "select POWER_SUPPLY".
I'll see if that works.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/