Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill

[Johannes Berg]

On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 16:29 +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:11:33 +0900
> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > 
> > > +	tristate "Generic rfkill regulator driver"
> > > +	depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> > 
> > That looks *odd*.
> 
> Taken from Documentation/rfkill.txt section 3.  Kernel API.
> I guess I can drop it if we want to be stricter and just require RFKILL
> to be enabled. Johannes?

I guess it depends on what you're looking to do. Since all you implement
is set_block() you might very well not need to be able to have this if
nothing is ever going to invoke set_block(), in which case you can do
"depends on RFKILL".

The reason for this usually is that a driver, like a wireless driver,
should work even if there's no rfkill API available, but it shouldn't
need to put #ifdefs into the code itself.

johannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/