[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-25 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On 25/05/10 08:47, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 07:17 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/24/10 06:59, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Won't this result in a behavioural

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-25 Thread Dave Airlie
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 07:17 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/24/10 06:59, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is > >> > >

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On 25/05/10 08:47, Dave Airlie wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 07:17 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/24/10 06:59, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: Won't this result in a behavioural difference? Th

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is > > It could, yes. > > > that that configuration be impossible, not for that configuration to > > build but be bu

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 05:00:40PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap > > When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) > and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is that that

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Dave Airlie
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 07:17 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/24/10 06:59, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is > >> > >

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is > > It could, yes. > > > that that configuration be impossible, not for that configuration to > > build but be bu

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 05:00:40PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap > > When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) > and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is that that

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 17:00 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap > > When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) > and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): > > nouveau_connector.c:(.text+0xe17ce): undefined reference to `acpi_lid_open' > > Sign

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 05/24/10 06:59, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is >> >> It could, yes. >> >>> that that configuration be impossible, not

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 05/24/10 06:59, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:53:51AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Won't this result in a behavioural difference? The desirable outcome is >> >> It could, yes. >> >>> that that configuration be impossible, not

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 05:00:40PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> From: Randy Dunlap >> >> When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) >> and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): > > Won't this result in a behaviou

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 05/24/10 05:56, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 05:00:40PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> From: Randy Dunlap >> >> When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) >> and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): > > Won't this result in a behaviou

Re: [PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-24 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 17:00 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap > > When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) > and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): > > nouveau_connector.c:(.text+0xe17ce): undefined reference to `acpi_lid_open' > > Sign

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-23 Thread Randy Dunlap
From: Randy Dunlap When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): nouveau_connector.c:(.text+0xe17ce): undefined reference to `acpi_lid_open' Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap Cc: David Airlie Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesk

[PATCH -next] nouveau: fix acpi_lid_open undefined

2010-05-23 Thread Randy Dunlap
From: Randy Dunlap When CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m (and probably when ACPI_BUTTON is not enabled) and NOUVEAU is built-in (not as a loadable module): nouveau_connector.c:(.text+0xe17ce): undefined reference to `acpi_lid_open' Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap Cc: David Airlie Cc: dri-devel at lists.freed