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

Alan Stern
2012-11-02T14:20:33Z

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:

> >>> 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.

Ah, okay, good.

Greg, whichever version you take, you can add:

Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>