Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:51:00 +0200 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > >> On Tuesday 23 September 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> Ivo van Doorn wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 23 September 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> If RT2X00=y but RFKILL=m, these build errors happen: >>>>> >>>>> (.text+0x7c7d6): undefined reference to `rfkill_free' >>>>> rt2x00rfkill.c:(.text+0x7c830): undefined reference to `rfkill_force_state' >>>>> (.text+0x7c88d): undefined reference to `rfkill_unregister' >>>>> (.text+0x7c8cd): undefined reference to `rfkill_register' >>>>> (.text+0x7ca1a): undefined reference to `rfkill_allocate' >>>>> >>>>> so restrict RT2X00's RFKILL config level to that of the main RFKILL option. >>>>> This is done by making the former a tristate instead of a bool >>>>> config option. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If RT2X00=y but LEDS_CLASS=m, these build errors happen: >>>>> >>>>> (.text+0x11859f): undefined reference to `led_classdev_resume' >>>>> (.text+0x1185b3): undefined reference to `led_classdev_resume' >>>>> (.text+0x1185c7): undefined reference to `led_classdev_resume' >>>>> (.text+0x1185e4): undefined reference to `led_classdev_suspend' >>>>> (.text+0x1185f8): undefined reference to `led_classdev_suspend' >>>>> (.text+0x11860c): undefined reference to `led_classdev_suspend' >>>>> rt2x00leds.c:(.text+0x118620): undefined reference to `led_classdev_unregister' >>>>> rt2x00leds.c:(.text+0x118695): undefined reference to `led_classdev_register' >>>>> >>>>> so restrict RT2X00's LEDS config level to that of the main LEDS_CLASS option. >>>>> This is done by making the former a tristate instead of a bool >>>>> config option. >>>> Is that really going to work correctly? >>>> rfkill and leds support should be compiled into rt2x00lib.ko, which means that >>>> should become a module instead of the rfkill/leds support part only. >>> I wondered about that lib.ko. Any working build fix is OK with me. >>> What do you suggest? >> Actually I was hoping that you answer to my question was going to be "yes it will be working correctly" ;) >> >> Would this work? >> >> config RT2X00_LIB_RFKILL >> tristate >> depends on RFKILL >> default y >> >> config RT2X00_LIB_LEDS >> tristate >> depends on NEW_LEDS >> depends on LEDS_CLASS >> default y >> >> config RT2X00_LIB >> tristate >> depends on RT2X00_LIB_RFKILL if (RT2X00_LIB_RFKILL != n) >> depends on RT2X00_LIB_LEDS if (RT2X00_LIB_LEDS != n) >> >> It's ugly, and I can't test this right now, but perhaps you have an idea if this could do the trick? > > I tried it: > > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/Kconfig:22: invalid option > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/Kconfig:23: invalid option > > "depends ... if ..." is invalid. Would be nice to have that. > Maybe there is some other way to express that... Wouldn't this do it? depends on (RT2X00_LIB_RFKILL == m) || (RT2X00_LIB_RFKILL == y) In b43, what I think is a similar configuration statement is written as depends on B43 && (RFKILL = y || RFKILL = B43) && RFKILL_INPUT && (INPUT_POLLDEV = y || INPUT_POLLDEV = B43) Larry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
