Messages in this thread | | | From | "Masayuki Ohtake" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Topcliff PHUB: Generate PacketHub driver | Date | Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:12:17 +0900 |
| |
Hi Arnd,
Thank you for your comments. I can understand your intention. I misunderstood about Kconfig behavior.
Thanks, Ohtake.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> To: "Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com> Cc: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; "Andrew" <andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com>; "Intel OTC" <joel.clark@intel.com>; "Wang, Qi" <qi.wang@intel.com>; "Wang, Yong Y" <yong.y.wang@intel.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Topcliff PHUB: Generate PacketHub driver
> On Tuesday 15 June 2010, Masayuki Ohtake wrote: > > >This should not be necessary. Just use CONFIG_PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ directly > > >in the code instead of the extra PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ macro. > > > > I have a question. I show the above reason. > > In case CAN is integrated as MODULE, macro name is CONFIG_PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ_MODULE. > > On the other hand, integrated as built-in, CONFIG_PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ. > > To prevent PHUB source code from integrated as MODULE or BUILT-IN, > > we re-define macro name in Makefile. > > > > If use CONFIG_PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ directly in the source code, > > in case buit-in, behavior is not correct. > > But in case module, behavior is not correct. > > I don't understand the problem, because you have the definition > > config PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ > bool "CAN PCLK 50MHz" > depends on PCH_PHUB > > which is 'bool', not 'tristate', so it can never be a module. > If you are referring to a dependency on the CAN code that is > not part of this patch, you can express this as > > config PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ > bool "CAN PCLK 50MHz" > depends on PCH_PHUB || CAN != "n" > > This will leave CONFIG_PCH_CAN_PCLK_50MHZ as bool and let it only > get enabled if CONFIG_CAN is either "y" or "m". > Does that answer your question? > > Arnd >
| |