On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 02:43 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > -ENOMENUCONFIGPATCH
Has anybody decided how it could possibly even look like anyhow? It should be fixed, but nobody has a plan. > That's horrible - you shouldn't force the user to manually enable three > options. Well, akpm says: "select is broken. do not ever use it" > config SSB_PCIHOST_POSSIBLE [...] > depends on SSB_PCIHOST_POSSIBLE > select SSB > select SSB_PCIHOST That would, indeed, be possible. But it's ... ugly ... you've now effectively pushed the information on what *SSB* depends on into each SSB *user* instead of SSB itself... > Is there any extremely good reason why options like SSB or SSB_PCIHOST > have to be user visible? Yes. Embedded systems like the small Linksys routers come with SSB as the system bus. No PCI/PCIHOST. > And according to the kconfig help text, we should remove the B44_PCI > option and enable the code unconditionally? > (Or what was the person writing this help text smoking^Wthinking when > writing it?) Same reason. They have a b44 core there but no pci. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
