From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:58:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:58:50 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:39951 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:58:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3E28B099.4E85C56D@linux-m68k.org> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 02:40:41 +0100 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Robert P. J. Day" CC: Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: questions about config files, I2C and hardware sensors (2.5.59) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, "Robert P. J. Day" wrote: > so the issues: > > 1) trivial: comment is wrong, there is no dependency on > EXPERIMENTAL This has to be answered by the I2C maintainer. > 2) since, in the sourcing Kconfig file, I2C_PROC *already* depends > on I2C, is there any practical value in having the dependency > "I2C && I2C_PROC". wouldn't "depends on I2C_PROC" be sufficient? Yes. > 3) finally, given that the comment at the top is adamant that > all of these options depend on I2C and I2C_PROC, wouldn't it > be cleaner to just make the menu itself say: > > menu "I2C HW Sensors Mainboard Support" > depends on I2C && I2C_PROC (or just I2C_PROC) > ... > > and let the internal options inherit this dependency? Yes, the menu entry needs the dependencies as well. bye, Roman