Re: [PATCH] power: bq27xxx_battery: Revert "Remove unneeded dependency in Kconfig"

[Andrew F. Davis]

On 11/09/2015 02:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 09 November 2015 10:56:13 Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> > On 11/09/2015 07:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Nothing enabled by BATTERY_BQ27XXX depends on I2C, this workaround is not
> > correct as it prevents BATTERY_BQ27XXX from being built-in when I2C is a
> > module, there is no reason for this limitation.
> >
> > The undefined references are caused by BATTERY_BQ27XXX being built-in AND
> > its I2C functionality being enabled (BATTERY_BQ27XXX_I2C) while I2C is a
> > module. Reorganizing this driver is being discussed anyway, but in the
> > meantime a more correct fix would be along the lines of:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/Kconfig b/drivers/power/Kconfig
> > index 6de6ec2..d1d32f9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/power/Kconfig
> > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ config BATTERY_BQ27XXX_I2C
> >           bool "BQ27xxx I2C support"
> >           depends on BATTERY_BQ27XXX
> >           depends on I2C
> > +       depends on !(I2C=m && BATTERY_BQ27XXX=y)
> >           default y
> >           help
> >             Say Y here to enable support for batteries with BQ27xxx (I2C) chips.
>
> That works too, there is just very little difference in the end here,
> and it's easier to revert an patch that only introduces a regression
> than to do a different hack, especially if it's going to be reworked
> soon anyway.
>
> Do you want to submit the above as a fixup to your other patch or
> should we just do the revert? It would be good to get one of the two
> into -rc1.

I can just submit this fix, it would probably be better for the short term
until the rework is done.

Andrew
--
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/