From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756098AbaLWKvI (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2014 05:51:08 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:51731 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754411AbaLWKvE (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2014 05:51:04 -0500 From: Kalle Valo To: Paul Bolle Cc: Johannes Berg , Stanislav Yakovlev , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ipw2200: select CFG80211_WEXT References: <1419271817.2317.12.camel@tiscali.nl> <871tnqhn7j.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <1419330055.30945.76.camel@x220> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:50:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1419330055.30945.76.camel@x220> (Paul Bolle's message of "Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:20:55 +0100") Message-ID: <87sig6ej1t.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Bolle writes: > On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:52 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Paul Bolle writes: >> >> > Commit 24a0aa212ee2 ("cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable") >> > made it impossible to depend on CFG80211_WEXT. It does still allow to >> > select that symbol. (Yes, the commit summary is confusing.) >> > >> > So make IPW2200 select CFG80211_WEXT, so that the ipw2200 driver can be >> > built again. >> >> I think the last sentence is a bit misleading (this isn't a compilation >> error, right?) > > No, it's not a compilation error. > > The reasoning here is that all code hidden behind a Kconfig symbol that > cannot be set will, in practice, never be built. Sure, there are hoops > one can jump through to try to bypass the generated .config, but no one > should have to do that. > >> and I would like to clarify it like this: >> >> "So make IPW2200 select CFG80211_WEXT, so that the ipw2200 driver can be >> enabled in config again." >> >> Does that look ok? > > I understand the confusion my text might cause, so I'm fine with your > amendment. Thanks for checking. I'll modify the commit log and apply it to wireless-drivers.git. -- Kalle Valo