Re: [PATCH] Kconfig dependancy update for drivers/misc/ibmasm

[Tony Breeds]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:34:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
 
> Seems sane to me, but I'm not sure why this wasn't done originally.  ie, this:
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_8250
>  extern void ibmasm_register_uart(struct service_processor *sp);
>  extern void ibmasm_unregister_uart(struct service_processor *sp);
> +#else
> +#define ibmasm_register_uart(sp)	do { } while(0)
> +#define ibmasm_unregister_uart(sp)	do { } while(0)
> +#endif
> 
> becomes unnecessary with your patch.
> 
> Max, any preferences?

If I read this correctly the above patch would mean that ibmasm can be
built regardless of the value of SERIAL_8250 BUT my patch means it can
only be built if SERIAL_8250 is also being built (regardless of state).

Can the device operate correctly without the uart?  If so then my patch
is bogus.

Yours Tony

        linux.conf.au       http://lca2005.linux.org.au/
	Apr 18-23 2005      The Australian Linux Technical Conference!

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/