[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A72BB3.9090206@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:17:55 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] iio: imu: Fix dependencies for !HAS_IOMEM archs
Am 26.01.2016 um 01:15 schrieb Paul Bolle:
> On ma, 2016-01-25 at 23:24 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/Kconfig
>
>> config INV_MPU6050_IIO
>> tristate "Invensense MPU6050 devices"
>> depends on I2C && SYSFS
>> + depends on I2C_MUX
>
> Nit: if I parsed the v4.5-rc1 tree correctly I2C_MUX depends I2C. So
> just
> depends on I2C_MUX && SYSFS
>
> should also do the trick. Is it clearer to mention both I2C and I2C_MUX
> explicitly?
I don't have a strong opinion on that. In general I'm a fan of explicit
dependencies but in this case, you are right, also an implicit one should to it.
Let's see what maintainers think. :-)
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists