Re: OLPC power management patches - merge for 3.1?

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:59:20 +0100 Daniel Drake wrote:

> 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:

If I knew a good solution, I would have posted it.

> depends on POWER_SUPPLY=y

You could do that.

> or
> 
> depends on POWER_SUPPLY
> select POWER_SUPPLY
> 
> ?

You can't do both of those AFAIK -- and it already depends on POWER_SUPPLY.
I guess you could remove "depends on POWER_SUPPLY" and add "select POWER_SUPPLY".
I'll see if that works.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***