On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 07:20:21PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 30 June 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > > I hadn't thought about the allyesconfig case yet. Adding a "depends on > > !HAVE_PWM" to the PWM symbol should work and is the easiest fix to this > > kind of problem while other PWM legacy API implementations are ported to > > the PWM subsystem. > > > > Sascha, Arnd (Cc'ed): what do you think? > > > > I don't know if I'll get enough time to test this over the weekend but I > > should get to it when I'm back in the office on Monday. > > > You cannot depend on a symbol in the same place that provides it -- that > would be a recursive dependency (or a paradox). The PWM symbol doesn't provide HAVE_PWM. > I think that all the drivers that are not converted to the common PWM > layer yet should depend on not enabling the common code. Once they > are all moved over, that dependency will go away. Right. That's exactly what I meant. If we add depends on !HAVE_PWM to the PWM symbol that should result in both options conflicting, and therefore not being built at the same time. Thierry
Attachment:
pgp_nSxUoVwUS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
