On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> but maybe it would be about APM being enabled. Which is what the caller
>> actually seems to care about and talks about for the failure case. Maybe
>> you need separate functions for the "is APM enabled" case for the naming
>> to make s
On Wednesday, February 09, 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
> > CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
>
> The patch may _work_, but I really hate it
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
> CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
The patch may _work_, but I really hate it. That function naming is insane:
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> #
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
If direct references to pm_flags are moved from bus.c to sleep.c,
CONFIG_ACPI will not need to depend on CONFIG_PM any more.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
---
drivers/acpi/Kconfig|1 -
drivers/acpi/bus.c |4 +---
drivers/acpi/internal.h |6 ++
