Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 31 (ehci, dbgp)

Jan Beulich
2012-11-02T14:03:23Z

>>> On 02.11.12 at 15:01, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >>> Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> 11/01/12 9:39 PM >>>
>> >On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> 11/01/12 4:28 PM >>>
>> >> >Evidently we need to change your new test in
>> >> >drivers/usb/early/ehci-dbgp.c to:
>> >> >
>> >> >#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_HCD_EHCI) || defined(CONFIG_USB_CHIPIDEA_HOST)
>> >> >
>> >> >Upcoming changes to ehci-hcd will make this unnecessary in 3.8, but for
>> >> >now we need it.
>> >>
>> >> Which tells me that the CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT version would have been
>> >> the better one (and I would favor that over the ugly variant you suggest
>> >> above).
>> >
>> >I also suggested IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB), which is no uglier than what
>> >you submitted and would also fix this build error. How about using it
>> >instead?
>>
>> Yes, that's better. Question then is - updated original patch or incremental
> one?
>
> Greg will probably want an incremental patch, because the original has
> already been merged.

I actually sent both (the incremental as attachment - I hope that's
going to be acceptable to him) in a submission earlier today.

Jan