Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on

[Jos Hulzink]

On Friday 01 November 2002 20:47, Dave Jones wrote:
> 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.

This seems to be true from what I have seen of the source so far.

I'm thinking....

ACPI is more than Power Management. The fact that a system supports ACPI does 
not mean that the user wants to use power management. On the other hand, I 
see no reason why a user does NOT want a system to auto poweroff, and sleep 
and suspend are easy to configure in BIOS, or by linux tools. (Does Linux 
take over the BIOS settings for suspend & sleep ? Don't use them, so 
donnow....) What I wanna say: I think it is okay if CONFIG_PM is replaced by 
CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI

Other issue: Are ACPI and APM not mutually exclusive ? If so, I would propose 
a selection box: <ACPI> <APM> <none> with related options shown below. Hmzz.. 
there the issue of the fact that ACPI is more than power management shows up 
again.

And well... CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI might look ugly to you, I think it isn't 
that bad, besides, you gain a lot from the configuration side. IMHO 
configuring the kernel has become hard enough with the new input layer 
already :( Maybe it is time for a "[ ] show expert options" in the 
configuration tool... 

Jos