Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: trivial corrections to Kconfig help text

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hello,

On 05/29/2010 05:41 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Hmmmm... maybe we can emphasize the 'if unsure, say Y' part?
> 
> I did follow that recommendation but was still left curious. :-)

Maybe it should be changed to "You're supposed to be unsure, say Y,
dammit!" :-)

>>> Or could that option even be hidden and 'select'ed by bus master DMA
>>> capable ATA SFF drivers?
>>
>> I wanted to make the distinction clear so made the option explicit.
>> Opinions on whether that is actually a good idea would differ but at
>> the same time, I don't think this would cause any problem, would it?
> 
> OK, I first came across it by way of make oldconfig.  Then I read the
> changelog and still wondered.  Now I had a look at the menu layout in
> gconfig and it makes sense to me now.
> 
> Just from the looks of the menu, would calling the prompt
> 
> 	bool "SFF controllers with bus master DMA"
> 
> be sensible?  After all, this option does not just control whether a
> certain capability is built into libata, switching it on pulls up the
> Kconfig prompts for a whole range of controller drivers.  (Ok, the help
> text is saying exactly this, but then the prompt could do so already...)

Yes, sure.  Can you please combine this with the original patch?

> The 'hidden variable + select' way would be more friendly to "make
> oldconfig", but I see now that it would take quite a few select
> statements to be added.

Yeah, that and I *really* wanted to make the distinction explicit
because ambiguous dependeny has been a problem for some time.  Now a
driver will end up in a different config section which is always
visible depending on its dependencies, so I like this much better.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun