lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill
From
Date
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 16:29 +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:11:33 +0900
> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> >
> > > + tristate "Generic rfkill regulator driver"
> > > + depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> >
> > That looks *odd*.
>
> Taken from Documentation/rfkill.txt section 3. Kernel API.
> I guess I can drop it if we want to be stricter and just require RFKILL
> to be enabled. Johannes?

I guess it depends on what you're looking to do. Since all you implement
is set_block() you might very well not need to be able to have this if
nothing is ever going to invoke set_block(), in which case you can do
"depends on RFKILL".

The reason for this usually is that a driver, like a wireless driver,
should work even if there's no rfkill API available, but it shouldn't
need to put #ifdefs into the code itself.

johannes



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-06 16:35    [W:0.659 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site