On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/Kconfig b/drivers/hid/Kconfig > > > index a421abd..73c2d39 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/hid/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/Kconfig > > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ menu "Special HID drivers" > > > config HID_A4TECH > > > tristate "A4 tech mice" if EXPERT > > > depends on USB_HID > > > - default !EXPERT > > > + default !EMBEDDED > > > ---help--- > > > Support for A4 tech X5 and WOP-35 / Trust 450L mice. > > > > > > and the other HID drivers... > > > > > > > Um, no, HID_A4TECH is still only configurable for CONFIG_EXPERT with this > > patch. Jerome's premise is that this should be configurable for > > CONFIG_EMBEDDED instead. Please read what he wrote. > > Yes, you still need EXPERT to expose the option, but then EMBEDDED will > switch the default. You only need to set EMBEDDED=y to do that though, > that's what this little thing called "select" does. > Until such time as EMBEDDED is decoupled from EXPERT. So to preserve the eventual goal of separating EMBEDDED and EXPERT entirely, this would need to be a tristate if EXPERT || EMBEDDED. I'll leave the determination of the default to the HID maintainers, it's not my area. This isn't the first time that Jiri will have had to deal with CONFIG_EXPERT usage in this subsystem. There're other examples of this for x86 for things like serio drivers or keyboard drivers. > Oh, so now we can break backwards compatibility for some cases? What is > the criteria for those cases? Let me guess at a few; > I think it's fine to break backwards compatibility for options that are currently configurable for CONFIG_EXPERT when it only makes sense for embedded systems and use CONFIG_EMBEDDED instead. They better already have it enabled and my patch a year ago didn't break it for them. CONFIG_EXPERT isn't an invitation to be able to configure everything in the kernel. > What do you mean you've considered not reading this pointless thread? You > wrote it! All the nonsense comes from you. Besides the patch submission, > which fixes a real problem, this thread HAS been pointless, and wasted a > lot of my time. > I'm trying to clue you into how we don't break existing configs for users who would run make oldconfig on a kernel with your patch. That's why it's nacked and nobody would sanely apply such a patch. I'll leave the remainder of the thread to you now, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
