Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:53 +0100 Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:47:18PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > That was my initial approach as well, which got shot down by Andrew
> > > > > Morton and others as being unacceptable.
> > > > 
> > > > where?
> > > 
> > > In private mail.
> > > 
> > > > why?
> > > 
> > > Well, first I need to gain the permission of Andrew to post his private
> > > message.  I'm not being subborn here - I _do_ _not_ reproduce private
> > > messages in public without prior permission.
> > 
> > Sure, understood.
> > 
> > > > Seems like we need to push back on that part.
> > > 
> > > Talk to Andrew then.
> > 
> > He is cc-ed (although traveling much this week IIRC).
> 
> In which case, since it's likely I won't get a reply in the next hour
> (which'll delay my response by 24 hours) let me paraphrase what Andrew
> said.
> 
> Andrew believes that it is beneficial to have other architectures,
> particularly x86, build other architectures drivers.

Well.  I pointed out that there are arguments either way, and I do tend to
think that the let-x86-compile-it-too approach is perhaps the better one,
but that's a 51%/49% opinion.  Others disagree and lots and lots of code
has gone the other way.  Do whatever you think best ;)