[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1513008559.2747.0.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:09:20 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"balbi@...nel.org" <balbi@...nel.org>
CC: "romain.izard.pro@...il.com" <romain.izard.pro@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
"ruslan.bilovol@...il.com" <ruslan.bilovol@...il.com>,
"hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>,
"cascardo@...cardo.eti.br" <cascardo@...cardo.eti.br>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: gadget: restore tristate-choice for legacy
gadgets
On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 12:30 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> One patch that was meant as a cleanup apparently did more than it intended,
> allowing all combinations of legacy gadget drivers to be built into the
> kernel, and leaving an empty 'choice' statement behind:
>
> drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig:487:warning: choice default symbol 'USB_ETH' is not contained in the choice
>
> The description of commit 7a9618a22aad ("usb: gadget: allow to enable legacy
> drivers without USB_ETH") was a bit cryptic, as it did not change the
> behavior of USB_ETH other than allowing it to be built into the kernel
> alongside other legacy gadgets, which is not a valid configuration.
>
> As Felipe explained in the description for commit bc49d1d17dcf ("usb:
> gadget: don't couple configfs to legacy gadgets"), the configfs based
> gadgets can be freely configured as loadable modules or built-in
> drivers, but the legacy gadgets can only be modules if there is more
> than one of them, so we require the 'choice' statement here.
>
> This leaves the added USB_GADGET_LEGACY menuconfig symbol in place,
> but then restores the 'choice' below it, so we can enforce the
> single-legacy-gadget rule as before.
Hello Arnd,
A discussion is ongoing about whether or not commit 7a9618a22aad should be reverted.
Please drop this patch until a conclusion has been reached.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists