From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: afd@ti.com (Andrew F. Davis) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:23:22 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] power: bq27xxx_battery: Revert "Remove unneeded dependency in Kconfig" In-Reply-To: <10870776.N30IekZOBt@wuerfel> References: <3819790.E2ziFviWmU@wuerfel> <5640D02D.6040601@ti.com> <10870776.N30IekZOBt@wuerfel> Message-ID: <56410ECA.7050109@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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