Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 8 (media/usb/gspca)

[Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>]

On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 22:50 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:53:33 -0700
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> escreveu:
> > On 10/08/14 11:31, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > From gpsca's PoV, IMHO, it should be fine to disable the webcam buttons if
> > > the webcam was compiled as builtin and the input subsystem is compiled as 
> > > module. The core feature expected on a camera is to capture streams. 
> > > Buttons are just a plus.
> > > 
> > > Also, most cams don't even have buttons. The gspca subdriver has support 
> > > for buttons for the few models that have it.
> > > 
> > > So, IMHO, it should be ok to have GSPCA=y and INPUT=m, provided that 
> > > the buttons will be disabled.
> > 
> > Then all of the sub-drivers that use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INPUT) should be
> > changed to use IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_INPUT).
> > 
> > But that is too restrictive IMO.  The input subsystem will work fine when
> > CONFIG_INPUT=m and the GSPCA drivers are also loadable modules.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Maybe the solution would be something more complex like 
> (for drivers/media/usb/gspca/zc3xx.c):
> 
> #if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_INPUT)) || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INPUT) && !IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_USB_GSPCA_ZC3XX))

The above discussion meanders a bit, and I just stumbled onto it, but
would
    #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_INPUT) || (IS_MODULE(CONFIG_INPUT) && defined(MODULE))

cover your requirements when using macros?

> Probably the best would be to write another macro that would evaluate
> like the above.


Paul Bolle