On 09/28/2012 02:46 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Haicheng Li<[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0800
On 09/28/2012 06:09 AM, David Miller wrote:
Look at how other people submit patches, do any other patch
submissions
look like your's having all of this metadata in the message body:
I'm sorry for it.
As for this specific patch:
- depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH
+ depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH = PCH_GBE
This is not the correct way to ensure that the module'ness of one
config option meets the module'ness requirements of another.
The correct way is to say something like "&& (PCH_GBE || PCH_GBE=n)"
This case is a little bit tricky than usual, with PCH_PTP selected,
the valid config would be either "PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=PCH_GBE=m" or
"PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=PCH_GBE=y", and PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH depends on
PCH_GBE.
And a simple "&& PCH_GBE" should accomplish this, no?
No sir. it's actually same with the original Kconfig (by a if PCH_GBE"), it
just failed with this config:
CONFIG_PCH_GBE=y
CONFIG_PCH_PTP=y
CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK=m
-haicheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
