From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763279AbYDVVCh (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:02:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758119AbYDVVCQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:02:16 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:47727 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757302AbYDVVCP (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:02:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:53 +0100 From: Russell King To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: Harvey Harrison , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Andrew Morton , Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver Message-ID: <20080422210153.GB21435@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1208895950.24124.9.camel@brick> <20080422203334.GA9809@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20080422204549.GA21435@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:47:18PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > > > > > That was my initial approach as well, which got shot down by Andrew > > > > Morton and others as being unacceptable. > > > > > > where? > > > > In private mail. > > > > > why? > > > > Well, first I need to gain the permission of Andrew to post his private > > message. I'm not being subborn here - I _do_ _not_ reproduce private > > messages in public without prior permission. > > Sure, understood. > > > > Seems like we need to push back on that part. > > > > Talk to Andrew then. > > He is cc-ed (although traveling much this week IIRC). In which case, since it's likely I won't get a reply in the next hour (which'll delay my response by 24 hours) let me paraphrase what Andrew said. Andrew believes that it is beneficial to have other architectures, particularly x86, build other architectures drivers. Meanwhile, pHilipp Zabel believes this hardware not to be ARM specific. So, the majority concensus in the three way discussion was that it should remain visible, and the (unnecessary) include and its dependents be removed. Having now had some time (read: half an hour after dinner after getting back home) to investigate, I can point to the patch in several places: http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/armlinux/kernel/git-cur/arm:devel.mbox and find the patch with subject line: [ARM] 5010/1: htc-pasic3: remove unused defines and includes or grab 5010/1 from my patch system. If you want a patch to plaster over it, merging that would be a far better solution. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: