[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302172417.21251.48.camel@thorin>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:33:37 +0200
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Antonio Ospite <ospite@...denti.unina.it>,
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 Don, 2011-04-07 at 12:09 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 12:01 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > On Mit, 2011-04-06 at 20:46 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 20:12 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > But doesn't
> > > > depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> > > >
> > > > always evaluate to true when running "make *config"? (Even if RFKILL is
> > > > an unknown symbol when that expression is parsed!)
> > >
> > > No, it will not, you're forgetting that these things are tristate.
> >
> > Boolean operators for tristate logic isn't intuitive at all IMHO.
>
> *shrug*. You're free to propose patches to the kconfig system to make it
> more intuitive. :-)
FullACK;-)
But no intuitive tristate logic operators come to my mind (otherwise I
would have mentioned them above).
And there are more logic implications in "depends on RFKILL".
Hmm, I have to think more about it ....
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
--
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