Re: Applied "regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning" to the regulator tree

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 12:06:46PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

> Following will not help
>             depends on THERMAL_OF if THERMAL_OF
> because THERMAL_OF is always "y" even if THERMAL is "m".

> Build error can by resolved by adding below in the Kconfig
>     depends on THERMAL

> but the issue is if THERMAL is "m" and  REGULATOR_MAX8973 is "y" as per the

So that should be depends on THERMAL if THERMAL_OF

> failure rand config then REGULATOR_MAX8973 automatically become "m". This
> may break some existing platform.

That's an inevitable consequence of adding this support, you can't get
around it.

> Also this driver does not need hard dependency in the thermal as max8973
> does not support thermal but max77621 supports it which is again optional.

> Some of driver use
>     drivers/power/charger-manager.c:#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL
>     drivers/power/power_supply_core.c:#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL

> So can we give the similar try here and test for build?

This is still a hack; if this is causing real problems the thermal
subsystem should be doing something to avoid the issue (for example
providing an always built in stub) though I suspect in reality it's not
a practical issue.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature