[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080128121245.GG1001@does.not.exist>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:12:45 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
Cc: Trent Piepho <xyzzy@...akeasy.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
v4l-dvb-maintainer@...uxtv.org,
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] 2.6.25 regression: VIDEO_DEV=y/m, I2C=n
compile error
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:49:12AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Maybe the kernel headers should provide a couple macros for testing
> > configs, since people get it wrong over and over again?
> >
> > #define CONFIG_ON(x) (defined(CONFIG_##x) || defined(CONFIG_##x##_MODULE))
> > #define CONFIG_AVAIABLE(x) (defined(CONFIG_##x) || (defined(MODULE) && defined(CONFIG_##x##_MODULE)))
>
> Seems a good idea to me.
> >
> > Not sure what to do about VIDEO_DEV=y, I2C=m. It should be possible except
> > for this function.
>
> I don't see much sense on allowing v4l2-common being in-kernel, while having
> I2C as module. Also, creating a separate module for just a single function
> seems to be overkill.
>
> IMO, in this specific case, v4l2-common should also be a module. Not sure,
> however,the better syntax on Kconfig. Once, someone suggested a very weird
> syntax, like:
>
> depends on I2C if I2C
Why does anyone want to introduce such a weird syntax for something
that already works with the simple
depends on I2C || I2C=n
?
> Cheers,
> Mauro
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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