>>> On 02.11.12 at 15:01, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 11/01/12 9:39 PM >>> >> >On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> >>> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 11/01/12 4:28 PM >>> >> >> >Evidently we need to change your new test in >> >> >drivers/usb/early/ehci-dbgp.c to: >> >> > >> >> >#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_HCD_EHCI) || defined(CONFIG_USB_CHIPIDEA_HOST) >> >> > >> >> >Upcoming changes to ehci-hcd will make this unnecessary in 3.8, but for >> >> >now we need it. >> >> >> >> Which tells me that the CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT version would have been >> >> the better one (and I would favor that over the ugly variant you suggest >> >> above). >> > >> >I also suggested IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB), which is no uglier than what >> >you submitted and would also fix this build error. How about using it >> >instead? >> >> Yes, that's better. Question then is - updated original patch or incremental > one? > > Greg will probably want an incremental patch, because the original has > already been merged. I actually sent both (the incremental as attachment - I hope that's going to be acceptable to him) in a submission earlier today. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
