[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2OfujAbCHqr+cRYw3SLNE0EnMkvPCvxd5R8hxv4zGCrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:16:51 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: bd70528: fix BD71815 watchdog dependency
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:23 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > config RTC_DRV_BD70528
> > tristate "ROHM BD70528, BD71815 and BD71828 PMIC RTC"
> > - depends on MFD_ROHM_BD71828 || MFD_ROHM_BD70528 && (BD70528_WATCHDOG || !BD70528_WATCHDOG)
> > + depends on MFD_ROHM_BD71828 || MFD_ROHM_BD70528 || BD70528_WATCHDOG
>
> Is the "|| BD70528_WATCHDOG" above correct ? Seems odd to me, since
> it makes the depend statement true even if neither MFD_ROHM_BD71828
> nor MFD_ROHM_BD70528 is enabled.
>
> I think the condition needs to be something like
> depends on (MFD_ROHM_BD71828 || MFD_ROHM_BD70528) && (BD70528_WATCHDOG || !BD70528_WATCHDOG)
> or, in two lines,
> depends on MFD_ROHM_BD71828 || MFD_ROHM_BD70528
> depends on BD70528_WATCHDOG || !BD70528_WATCHDOG
Indeed, I misread this as being used on any of three drivers, but
MFD_ROHM_BD70528/BD70528_WATCHDOG is really the same
thing.
I sent an updated patch.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists