Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on

Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk)
Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:47:11 +0000

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/