From: Haicheng Li <haicheng...@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:57:38 +0800
> On 09/28/2012 02:46 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Haicheng Li<haicheng...@linux.intel.com> >> 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 The correct fix is to make the Kconfig entry for PCH_PTP use a "select PTP_1588_CLOCK" instead of "depends PTP_1588_CLOCK" I'll apply this fix. The is another, extremely convoluted, way to do this, which is what the SFC driver does which is: depends on SFC && PTP_1588_CLOCK && !(SFC=y && PTP_1588_CLOCK=m) but that looks horrible to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/