[RFC][PATCH] b43: drop SSB dependency
zajec5 at gmail.com
Sat May 10 10:05:33 PDT 2014
On 10 May 2014 18:36, Michael Büsch <m at bues.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:12:15 +0200
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10 May 2014 17:17, Michael Büsch <m at bues.ch> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 10 May 2014 16:44:48 +0200
>> > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> +config B43_BUSES_BCMA_AND_SSB
>> >> + bool "BCMA and SSB"
>> >> + depends on BCMA_POSSIBLE && SSB_POSSIBLE
>> > I think this needs to be:
>> > depends on (BCMA_POSSIBLE && (BCMA = y || BCMA = B43)) && (SSB_POSSIBLE && (SSB = y || SSB = B43))
>> > to avoid the case where b43 is y and ssb or bcma is m.
>> > Or did I miss something and this is caught elsewhere?
>> Oh, wait, I think I meant B43_BUSES_BCMA_AND_SSB to select BCMA and
>> SSB (so user doesn't have to enable BCMA and SSB on his own). It it
>> the way it's handled without my patch (B43 select-s SSB).
>> I'd like to add
>> select BCMA
>> select SSB
>> , but this won't guarantee BCMA (or SSB) being "y" after choosing B43
>> to "y". Or will it?
> I'm currently unsure.
> You probably want to add select SSB to config B43_SSB and the same for B43_BCMA.
I've just tried this, however this will force SSB to be "y" (even if
B43 is "m"). We have to select BCMA/SSB from non-bool configs.
This lead me to the idea of select-ing SSB and BCMA in "B43" depending
on the B43_BCMA and B43_SSB. That should make the trick. I'll test it
and submit V2.
More information about the b43-dev