On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:52:18 +0200 Stefan Richter <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it sensible and safe to let a driver which uses bus_to_virt (but not > virt_to_bus) depend on CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS? If a driver depends on either bus_to_virt or virt_to_bus, then it depend on CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS. The intention is to exclude the driver from being built on achitectures that don't implement those primitives (and architectures always implement them both or neither). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [email protected] http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpjQfR4m1hwa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- [PATCH] ieee1394: sbp2: more correct Kconfig dependencies
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] ieee1394: sbp2: more correct Kconfig dependencies
- References:
- CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS: what about bus_to_virt?
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS: what about bus_to_virt?
- Prev by Date: Re: Hibernation considerations
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] i2o: defined but not used.
- Previous by thread: CONFIG_VIRT_TO_BUS: what about bus_to_virt?
- Next by thread: [PATCH] ieee1394: sbp2: more correct Kconfig dependencies
- Index(es):
 |