![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > I'm trying to stir up interest in solving a problem that seems to pop > up frequently. :) > > The short story is: > > 1) If you say your driver "depend"s on a subsystem providing a set of > interfaces you need, this doesn't work properly if your driver is > marked built-in and that subsystem you need is modular for some > reason. > > 2) If you say "select" on some subsystem, to try and solve the > conflict in #1, that doesn't take care of any dependencies the > subsystem may have. This can also break the build. > > There should be an elegant solution to this problem. But I don't > think changing how 'select' or 'depend' works is it. > > 'depend' as it stands now works fine for purely boolean things like > "this architecture has or wants FOO". There is no reason to remove > it or change it's semantics, I think. how far would "if you DEPENDS on FOO, and FOO is =m, you can only be =m or =n" get us? or are there hidden traps on this? (the hard case is if a non-tristate DEPENDS on a tristate, but... that's a trap anyway) -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-28 07:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||