[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: questions about config files, I2C and hardware sensors (2.5.59)

"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:

> so the issues:
> 1) trivial: comment is wrong, there is no dependency on

This has to be answered by the I2C maintainer.

> 2) since, in the sourcing Kconfig file, I2C_PROC *already* depends
> on I2C, is there any practical value in having the dependency
> "I2C && I2C_PROC". wouldn't "depends on I2C_PROC" be sufficient?


> 3) finally, given that the comment at the top is adamant that
> all of these options depend on I2C and I2C_PROC, wouldn't it
> be cleaner to just make the menu itself say:
> menu "I2C HW Sensors Mainboard Support"
> depends on I2C && I2C_PROC (or just I2C_PROC)
> ...
> and let the internal options inherit this dependency?

Yes, the menu entry needs the dependencies as well.

bye, Roman

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.038 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site