lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: OLPC power management patches - merge for 3.1?
From
On 24 July 2011 04:20, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-24 11:01    [W:0.058 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site