Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

Stefan Richter
2007-05-22T17:38:54Z

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> >> > On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> >> >> depends on !PLATFORM_X || HELPER_N_ON_PLATFORM_X
...
>> This is a synthetic example which might not have a real-world application.]
>
> Well, it is not relevant / equivalent to any of the four symbols that caused the
> warnings that this thread is about, at least.

(Have I ever said that this concrete expression can be used in whatever
fix?)

...
> and as I said, this was totally *not* the problem being discussed /
> solved in this thread (and by that patch).

My point was not about that particular expression. My point was:

I'm not advocating any specific fixes or pseudo-fixes.
I'm advocating the notation of dependencies in the direction
"A requires B".

When I said "The standard and maintainable way (for drivers at least)
is..." I didn't mean the example expression, I meant the *direction* in
which the example was stating dependencies.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= =-==-