From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris BREZILLON Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] ARM: at91: introduce OLD_IRQ_AT91 Kconfig option Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: <533697F8.5000903@gmail.com> References: <1396029548-10928-1-git-send-email-b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> <1396029548-10928-4-git-send-email-b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> <20140329100639.5ea454bc@skate> <7407417.cSDunZuEhW@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7407417.cSDunZuEhW@wuerfel> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Ferre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Landley , Thomas Gleixner , Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Le 29/03/2014 10:12, Arnd Bergmann a =E9crit : > On Saturday 29 March 2014 10:06:39 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Dear Boris BREZILLON, >> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:59:01 +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote: >> >>> +config OLD_IRQ_AT91 >>> + bool >>> + default false >> I don't think "default false" is a valid Kconfig construct. It could= be >> "default n", but that's useless since "default n" is the default >> behavior. So I believe you can simply get rid of that line. I'll fix it for the next version. > I think the above is syntactically correct, but it would be highly co= nfusing in > anyone ever does > > config false > def_bool y > > ;-) > > Aside from that, these three have completely identical meaning: > > config OLD_IRQ_AT91 > bool > > config OLD_IRQ_AT91 > def_bool n > > config OLD_IRQ_AT91 > bool > default n > > Arnd > > Thanks for the detailled explanation :-). Best Regards, Boris