Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:33:33 +0200 | From | Rogan Dawes <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] xtensa: don't offer PARPORT_PC |
| |
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> config PARPORT_PC > tristate "PC-style hardware" > depends on (!SPARC64 || PCI) && !SPARC32 && !M32R && !FRV && \ > - (!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300 > + (!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300 && !XTENSA
Pardon a possibly stupid question here, but would it not make more sense to code the architectures for which these various devices *are* possible, rather than requiring each architecture to go through the entire config file and add their own "we don't do this" for many entries?
As seen, it is easy for them to be missed, hence all these recent patches.
The way I look at it, it is a lot easier to require that the arch maintainer adds specific entries to get their particular hardware working, rather than go through a working setup and figure out how much they can take away before it breaks.
Rogan
| |