Le Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:21:29 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> ug, sorry, if I'd realised it was like this I'd have said "don't > bother". Apart from the obvious problem, this means that people will > keep breaking CONFIG_DMI=n all the time, because they will forget the > ifdefs, and the number of people who test with CONFIG_DMI=n will be > small. Yes, #ifdef CONFIG_DMI is not very comfortable. That why I proposed things such as DECLARE_DMI_FIXUP_TABLE(), because it would force people to use these macros, which would then be working correctly depending on DMI=y/n. However, there's still the issue of driver_data that I mentionned in my earlier post. What should I do ? Option 1 ? Option 2 ? Give up with the patch ? Thanks for your comments, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Free Embedded Linux Training Materials on http://free-electrons.com/training (More than 1500 pages!)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
