Hi, On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 04:04:27AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> >>> wouldn't a user expect USB to be enabled if the board _has_ a USB >>> connector ? >> >> Not if it's not going to be used. > > and how would you know before hand if it's going to be used or not ? You don't, that's what Kconfig is for: so the user can dynamically select what he wants or not on the kernel. And in order for it to be useful, dependencies have to be correct. >>>> 1) Do you think all the OMAP3 boards should add that? >>> >>> why not ? >> >> You prefer a patch that adds one line per board rather than a patch >> that adds one line in total... That is exactly the opposite of Linus's >> complaint regarding big ARM changesets. > > The thing is that what you are proposing will not scale when we have too > many boards with different transceivers. Then we will end up with things > like: > > config USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI [...] We are not talking about USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI, we are talking about TWL4030_USB, there's nothing to scale there. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
