[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1320744887.14409.379.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:34:47 +0100
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [TRIVIAL] 8250_hp300: Fix warning typo 'CONFIG_8250'
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 10:26 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > 1) If SERIAL_8250_HP300 is set but neither HPDCA nor HPAPCI are set we
> > end up with an elaborate nop, don't we? Initialization should always
> > fail in that case. So effectively SERIAL_8250_HP300 depends on HPDCA
> > and/or HPAPCI. Was there perhaps some problem in translating that
> > dependency into a Kconfig dependency?
[...]
> > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250_hp300.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250_hp300.c
> > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
> > #include "8250.h"
> >
> > #if !defined(CONFIG_HPDCA) && !defined(CONFIG_HPAPCI)
> > -#warning CONFIG_8250 defined but neither CONFIG_HPDCA nor CONFIG_HPAPCI defined, are you sure?
> > +#warning CONFIG_SERIAL_8250 defined but neither CONFIG_HPDCA nor CONFIG_HPAPCI defined, are you sure?
> > #endif
>
> What is the point of this warning anyway? Shouldn't everything necessary
> be taken care of by Kconfig rules?
That's exactly what I'm trying to find out with my questions (aimed at
the m68k people, see 1) above).
Paul Bolle
--
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