On Sat, 10 May 2014 18:12:15 +0200 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10 May 2014 17:17, Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 10 May 2014 16:44:48 +0200 > > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> +config B43_BUSES_BCMA_AND_SSB > >> + bool "BCMA and SSB" > >> + depends on BCMA_POSSIBLE && SSB_POSSIBLE > > > > I think this needs to be: > > > > depends on (BCMA_POSSIBLE && (BCMA = y || BCMA = B43)) && (SSB_POSSIBLE && (SSB = y || SSB = B43)) > > > > to avoid the case where b43 is y and ssb or bcma is m. > > Or did I miss something and this is caught elsewhere? > > Oh, wait, I think I meant B43_BUSES_BCMA_AND_SSB to select BCMA and > SSB (so user doesn't have to enable BCMA and SSB on his own). It it > the way it's handled without my patch (B43 select-s SSB). > > I'd like to add > select BCMA > select SSB > , but this won't guarantee BCMA (or SSB) being "y" after choosing B43 > to "y". Or will it? I'm currently unsure. You probably want to add select SSB to config B43_SSB and the same for B43_BCMA. > Any idea how to handle that? The (SSB = y || SSB = B43) dependency is supposed to handle that. And it was required in the past. But maybe it's not required anymore due to other changes. I'm not sure. -- Michael. ---- Please use PGP/GPG encryption. Key-ID: F532BE1D908D8B0E --------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
