[2.6 patch] PCMCIA mustn't select HAVE_IDE

[Russell King]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:23:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:34PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Monday 14 April 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:16:59PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > It's plain wrong for PCMCIA to select HAVE_IDE that implies e.g. the 
> > > > availability of an asm/ide.h
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk at kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > 9cdb66112488bc0c6e1d528444d3ba30d5b0487f diff --git a/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig b/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig
> > > > index 8b22281..519b4ff 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ config PCMCIA_DEBUG
> > > >  config PCMCIA
> > > >  	tristate "16-bit PCMCIA support"
> > > >  	select CRC32
> > > > -	select HAVE_IDE
> > > >  	default y
> > > 
> > > I did this when introducing HAVE_IDE.
> > > But I do not recall why and the rationale for removing it
> > > seems fine to me.
> > 
> > IIRC it was needed for some arm platforms which don't select HAVE_IDE
> > explicetely but I don't know if this is still the case, pinging Russell.
> 
> It's definitely bogus since it can cause compile breakage on 
> architectures like avr32.
> 
> And whatever it should have fixed should be fixed properly.

I'd suggest backing out the entire change which introduced HAVE_IDE then -
rather than doing it piecemeal and bringing up questions about it which
are unanswerable (which is the case of Bart's question of me.)

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: