>>> On 27.09.10 at 14:16, Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:08:50AM -0400, Jan Beulich wrote: > [...] > >> >> >> >> config SENSORS_CORETEMP >> >> tristate "Intel Core/Core2/Atom temperature sensor" >> >> - depends on X86 && PCI && EXPERIMENTAL >> >> + depends on X86 && EXPERIMENTAL >> >> + depends on PCI || (!MATOM && !GENERIC_CPU && !X86_GENERIC) >> >> help >> >> If you say yes here you get support for the temperature >> >> sensor inside your CPU. Most of the family 6 CPUs >> > >> > Resending my reply to this one as well. Again, apologies if there is >> > duplication. >> > >> > The coretemp code unconditionally calls pci functions, even if PCI is not >> > defined. >> > I am concerned that this might cause problems. It might be better to stick >> > with >> > the more generic dependency instead of trying to optimize too much. >> >> pci.h takes care to define stub inline functions for the !CONFIG_PCI >> case. It seemed largely odd for a driver like this to depend on PCI >> at all, and hence I think it is more transparent to make the needs >> explicit. >> > Seems to me the dependency should not exist in the first place, then. > Otherwise, the driver would still be disabled for GENERIC_CPU, which isn't > good either. Oh, not having a dependency on PCI at all would be even better. I didn't dare to suggest that. > Are there examples of other drivers which are not defining the PCI > dependency > but are conditionally calling pci functions ? I'm not aware of any, but also didn't explicitly look for such. Jan _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
