[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302100322.4090.5.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:32:02 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Antonio Ospite <ospite@...denti.unina.it>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, openezx-devel@...ts.openezx.org,
"John W . Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Guiming Zhuo <gmzhuo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 16:29 +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:11:33 +0900
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> >
> > > + tristate "Generic rfkill regulator driver"
> > > + depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> >
> > That looks *odd*.
>
> Taken from Documentation/rfkill.txt section 3. Kernel API.
> I guess I can drop it if we want to be stricter and just require RFKILL
> to be enabled. Johannes?
I guess it depends on what you're looking to do. Since all you implement
is set_block() you might very well not need to be able to have this if
nothing is ever going to invoke set_block(), in which case you can do
"depends on RFKILL".
The reason for this usually is that a driver, like a wireless driver,
should work even if there's no rfkill API available, but it shouldn't
need to put #ifdefs into the code itself.
johannes
--
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