Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill

From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Antonio Ospite <ospite@studenti.unina.it>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, openezx-devel@lists.openezx.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	Guiming Zhuo <gmzhuo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:38:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110406183837.GI11941@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1302113542.22852.7.camel@x61.thuisdomein>

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:12:22PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 16:21 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 23:11 +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +	tristate "Generic rfkill regulator driver"
> > > > +	depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> > > 
> > > That looks *odd*.
> > 
> > That's normal for rfkill -- if RFKILL==n then this can be anything since
> > the rfkill API goes all no-op inlines, but if RFKILL==m then this can't
> > be ==y. "depends on !RFKILL" covers the former, "depends on RFKILL" the
> > latter.
> 
> But doesn't
> 	depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> 
> always evaluate to true when running "make *config"? (Even if RFKILL is
> an unknown symbol when that expression is parsed!)
> 
> I'd say that dependencies such as this one might as well be dropped from
> their Kconfig file.

The syntax may seem strange, but basically it just says "don't let
me by y if RFKILL is m".

-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.