Re: [PATCH] Kconfig dependancy update for drivers/misc/ibmasm

From: Tony Breeds
Date: Tue Apr 20 2004 - 18:08:05 EST

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:34:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Seems sane to me, but I'm not sure why this wasn't done originally. ie, this:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_8250
> extern void ibmasm_register_uart(struct service_processor *sp);
> extern void ibmasm_unregister_uart(struct service_processor *sp);
> +#else
> +#define ibmasm_register_uart(sp) do { } while(0)
> +#define ibmasm_unregister_uart(sp) do { } while(0)
> +#endif
> becomes unnecessary with your patch.
> Max, any preferences?

If I read this correctly the above patch would mean that ibmasm can be
built regardless of the value of SERIAL_8250 BUT my patch means it can
only be built if SERIAL_8250 is also being built (regardless of state).

Can the device operate correctly without the uart? If so then my patch
is bogus.

Yours Tony
Apr 18-23 2005 The Australian Linux Technical Conference!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at