From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] iio: imu: Fix dependencies for !HAS_IOMEM archs References: <1453760661-1444-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1453760661-1444-17-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1453767342.17181.26.camel@tiscali.nl> From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <56A72BB3.9090206@nod.at> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:17:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1453767342.17181.26.camel@tiscali.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Bolle Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 26.01.2016 um 01:15 schrieb Paul Bolle: > On ma, 2016-01-25 at 23:24 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/Kconfig > >> config INV_MPU6050_IIO >> tristate "Invensense MPU6050 devices" >> depends on I2C && SYSFS >> + depends on I2C_MUX > > Nit: if I parsed the v4.5-rc1 tree correctly I2C_MUX depends I2C. So > just > depends on I2C_MUX && SYSFS > > should also do the trick. Is it clearer to mention both I2C and I2C_MUX > explicitly? I don't have a strong opinion on that. In general I'm a fan of explicit dependencies but in this case, you are right, also an implicit one should to it. Let's see what maintainers think. :-) Thanks, //richard