[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGq3pz6L5VzYaGBN8Py3x9s-orAp9AoG1OMM=1p8KJ1b3TVR6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:59:20 +0100
From: Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
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 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:
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists