On 22/07/15 02:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 04:28:43 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On 21/07/15 15:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20/07/15 23:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[..]
No. The other client will need to select PCC too.
Yes the PCC users/clients selecting PCC is fine and that's already
done(i.e. ACPI_CPPC_LIB selects PCC). I still don't understand the need
for this change, also how will other clients possibly select PCC which
now depends on CPPC_LIB ? e.g. if we have
config ACPI_XYZ_LIB
select PCC
config ACPI_XYZ
select ACPI_XYZ_LIB
Won't this shout warning: (ACPI_XYZ_LIB && ACPI_CPPC_LIB) selects PCC
which has unmet direct dependencies (MAILBOX && ACPI && ACPI_CPPC_LIB)
if ACPI_CPPC_LIB is not selected ?
That depends on the "depends on" clauses used. Selecting itself
doesn't cause any dependencies to appear.
Agreed and I am absolutely fine with that. But if you look at this
patch, it does
config PCC
bool "Platform Communication Channel Driver"
depends on ACPI && ACPI_CPPC_LIB
My bad, I've evidently overlooked that.
If PPC is selected from ACPI_CPPC_LIB, the "depends on" above is
obviously not needed.
Thanks for the confirmation.
I am fine with ACPI_CPPC_LIB selecting PCC which is already done in
earlier patch. I am against making PCC depend on ACPI_CPPC_LIB.
OK, makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
It's okay, I just wanted to make sure that I am not missing to
understand some kind of dependency.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
