[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070811004341.GA22213@stusta.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:43:41 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
Cc: 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, Aug 11, 2007 at 02:08:21AM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> This fixes the SSB dependency hell and introduces some
> fake-options that only give some advice on what to select.
>
> We live with these fake options only until menuconfig is able
> to tell more about needed dependencies and how to resolve them.
>...
-ENOMENUCONFIGPATCH
IOW: $t\rightarrow\infty$
> +config B44_ADVICE_HACK
> + bool "B44 for PCI not available. Read the help text of this option!"
> + depends on !B44_DEP_HACK
> + ---help---
> + The Broadcom 440x/47xx driver for PCI devices can not be enabled,
> + because the required dependencies are not selected.
> +
> + In order to be able to select the Broadcom 440x/47xx PCI driver, you
> + need to enable the following options first:
> +
> + CONFIG_SSB found in menu:
> + Device Drivers/Sonics Silicon Backplane/Sonics Silicon Backplane support
> + CONFIG_SSB_PCIHOST found in menu:
> + Device Drivers/Sonics Silicon Backplane/Support for SSB on PCI-bus host
> + CONFIG_SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE found in menu:
> + Device Drivers/Sonics Silicon Backplane/SSB PCI core driver
> +
>...
That's horrible - you shouldn't force the user to manually enable three
options.
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
The dependencies of SSB?
There are less horrible solutions for this issue, e.g. [1]:
drivers/ssb/Kconfig:
config SSB_POSSIBLE
bool
depends on EXPERIMENTAL && HAS_IOMEM
config SSB
tristate
config SSB_PCIHOST_POSSIBLE
bool
depends on SSB_POSSIBLE && PCI
config SSB_PCIHOST
bool
drivers/net/Kconfig:
config B44
tristate "Broadcom 440x/47xx ethernet support"
depends on SSB_PCIHOST_POSSIBLE
select SSB
select SSB_PCIHOST
I can make a complete patch for the SSB options, but I need some
pieces of information before starting:
Is there any extremely good reason why options like SSB or SSB_PCIHOST
have to be user visible?
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?)
cu
Adrian
[1] incomplete example for demonstrating an idea
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists