RE: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: Jos Hulzink [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> After some more puzzling, it becomes clear that much more 
> ACPI code should rely on CONFIG_PM. (Sleep.c should not be 
> compiled in at all without CONFIG_PM) As the ACPI guys seem 
> awake, I assume this will be fixed soon. For now: don't 
> forget to enable CONFIG_PM (Power Management in the root of 
> ACPI / APM configuration)

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?

Regards -- Andy