[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533697F8.5000903@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:52:56 +0100
From: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
CC: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] ARM: at91: introduce OLD_IRQ_AT91 Kconfig
option
Le 29/03/2014 10:12, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> On Saturday 29 March 2014 10:06:39 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Dear Boris BREZILLON,
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:59:01 +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>
>>> +config OLD_IRQ_AT91
>>> + bool
>>> + default false
>> I don't think "default false" is a valid Kconfig construct. It could be
>> "default n", but that's useless since "default n" is the default
>> behavior. So I believe you can simply get rid of that line.
I'll fix it for the next version.
> I think the above is syntactically correct, but it would be highly confusing in
> anyone ever does
>
> config false
> def_bool y
>
> ;-)
>
> Aside from that, these three have completely identical meaning:
>
> config OLD_IRQ_AT91
> bool
>
> config OLD_IRQ_AT91
> def_bool n
>
> config OLD_IRQ_AT91
> bool
> default n
>
> Arnd
>
>
Thanks for the detailled explanation :-).
Best Regards,
Boris
--
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