[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160307074409.GS18327@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:44:10 +0700
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, edubezval@...il.com,
rui.zhang@...el.com
Subject: Re: Applied "regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal
warning" to the regulator tree
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 12:06:46PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Following will not help
> depends on THERMAL_OF if THERMAL_OF
> because THERMAL_OF is always "y" even if THERMAL is "m".
> Build error can by resolved by adding below in the Kconfig
> depends on THERMAL
> but the issue is if THERMAL is "m" and REGULATOR_MAX8973 is "y" as per the
So that should be depends on THERMAL if THERMAL_OF
> failure rand config then REGULATOR_MAX8973 automatically become "m". This
> may break some existing platform.
That's an inevitable consequence of adding this support, you can't get
around it.
> Also this driver does not need hard dependency in the thermal as max8973
> does not support thermal but max77621 supports it which is again optional.
> Some of driver use
> drivers/power/charger-manager.c:#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL
> drivers/power/power_supply_core.c:#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL
> So can we give the similar try here and test for build?
This is still a hack; if this is causing real problems the thermal
subsystem should be doing something to avoid the issue (for example
providing an always built in stub) though I suspect in reality it's not
a practical issue.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists