On Wednesday 26 July 2006 20:42, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > Another question for you - what is the best way to describe
> > dependancy of a sub-option on a subsystem so you won't end up with the
> > subsystem as a module and user built in. Something like
> >
> > config IBM_ASM
> > tristate "Device driver for IBM RSA service processor"
> > depends on X86 && PCI && EXPERIMENTAL
> > ...
> > config IBM_ASM_INPUT
> > bool "Support for remote keyboard/mouse"
> > depends on IBM_ASM && (INPUT=y || INPUT=IMB_ASM)
> >
> > But the above feels yucky. Could we have something like:
> >
> > depends on matching(INPUT, IBM_ASM)
>
> This is not really descriptive of what it does, is it?
> Linus suggested a syntax like (IBM_ASM && IMB_ASM<=INPUT)
> Another alternative which works now is to just disable the one invalid
> case explicitely:
>
> depends on IBM_ASM && INPUT
> depends on !(IBM_ASM=y && INPUT=m)
>
OK, then I'll be disabling invalid cases explicitly for now.
Thank you Roman.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
