Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver

From: pHilipp Zabel
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 16:14:37 EST


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> Hmm. While I in general support the notion of trying to compile drivers on
> as wide a variety as hardware as possible, if that HTC_PASIC3 thing really
> is a PXA-only piece of hardware, I don't really see the point of not
> making the config file accurately represent that.
>
> That said, as far as I can tell, the compile failure is because of this
> line:
>
> #include <asm/arch/pxa-regs.h>
>
> and I cannot for the life of me see _why_ it tries to include that header
> file. It seems to compile fine on x96-64 if you just remove that include,
> and while I still think it should depend on ARCH_PXA just because it makes
> no sense _not_ to, I do wonder why that include is there in the first
> place.
>
> Hmm?

I'm embarrased to say, this is a left-over from a clean-up that
happened a long time ago. I probably forgot to double-check the
includes of this file before submitting to Russell. And this
superfluous include was never pointed out to me because I only
compiled that driver for ARM/PXA.
It seems having the driver enabled for x86 builds had its benefits (a
bug was found :)). I guess now it could just as well be made to depend
on ARCH_PXA, because although it does not really depend on pxa, it is
not of much use on any other architecture.

regards
Philipp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/