[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:57:36 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] b44-ssb: Fix the SSB dependency hell
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 02:43 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> -ENOMENUCONFIGPATCH
Has anybody decided how it could possibly even look like anyhow? It
should be fixed, but nobody has a plan.
> That's horrible - you shouldn't force the user to manually enable three
> options.
Well, akpm says: "select is broken. do not ever use it"
> config SSB_PCIHOST_POSSIBLE
[...]
> depends on SSB_PCIHOST_POSSIBLE
> select SSB
> select SSB_PCIHOST
That would, indeed, be possible. But it's ... ugly ... you've now
effectively pushed the information on what *SSB* depends on into each
SSB *user* instead of SSB itself...
> Is there any extremely good reason why options like SSB or SSB_PCIHOST
> have to be user visible?
Yes. Embedded systems like the small Linksys routers come with SSB as
the system bus. No PCI/PCIHOST.
> And according to the kconfig help text, we should remove the B44_PCI
> option and enable the code unconditionally?
> (Or what was the person writing this help text smoking^Wthinking when
> writing it?)
Same reason. They have a b44 core there but no pci.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists