Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver

[Randy Dunlap <RANDY.DUNLAP@ORACLE.COM>]

--- Original Message --- (from rmk:)
> 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.

Sure.

> Meanwhile, pHilipp Zabel believes this hardware not to be ARM
> specific.

That's the big Important missing info.  So the source file is
incorrect, not the Kconfig.l

> So, the majority concensus in the three way discussion was
> that it
> should remain visible, and the (unnecessary) include and its
> dependents be removed.
> 
> Having now had some time (read: half an hour after dinner after
> getting
> back home) to investigate, I can point to the patch in several
> places:
> 
>   http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/armlinux/kernel/git-cur/arm:devel.mbox
> 
> and find the patch with subject line:
> 
>   [ARM] 5010/1: htc-pasic3: remove unused defines and includes
> 
> or grab 5010/1 from my patch system.  If you want a patch to
> plaster over it, merging that would be a far better solution.

OK, sounds fair.  Thanks.

~Randy