| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080120111151.08b0266a@hyperion.delvare> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:11:51 +0100 From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> To: Adam Turk <bofh1234@...mail.com> Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <i2c@...sensors.org> Subject: Re: I2C_PARPORT_LIGHT dependence problem Hi Adam, On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:37:05 -0500, Adam Turk wrote: > I am updating an old config to run on 2.6.23.14 and noticed I am > still prompted for I2C_PARPORT_LIGHT even though I don't have > the parallel port driver enabled. Shouldn't I2C_PARPORT_LIGHT > depend on the parallel port being selected? (...) > > Symbol: I2C_PARPORT_LIGHT [=n] > │ Prompt: Parallel port adapter (light) > │ Defined at drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig:348 > │ Depends on: I2C > │ Location: > │ -> Device Drivers > │ -> I2C support (I2C [=m]) > │ -> I2C Hardware Bus support > │ Selects: I2C_ALGOBIT The help text says: "This driver is a light version of i2c-parport. It doesn't depend on the parport driver, and uses direct I/O access instead." So I think that the (lack of) dependencies is correct. We don't want to force the user to select PARPORT (and built the parport driver) to get access to the i2c-parport-light driver which does NOT need this parport driver. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists