[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC,PATCH] Cleanup PC parallel port Kconfig

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] Cleanup PC parallel port Kconfig
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:25:46 -0700
Cc:, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>, Chen Liqin <>, Chris Metcalf <>, Chris Zankel <>, "David S. Miller" <>, Fenghua Yu <>, Geert Uytterhoeven <>, Guan Xuetao <>, Helge Deller <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Ivan Kokshaysky <>, "James E.J. Bottomley" <>, Jesper Nilsson <>, Kyle McMartin <>, Lennox Wu <>, Matt Turner <>, Michal Simek <>, Mikael Starvik <>, Paul Mackerras <>, Paul Mundt <>, Richard Henderson <>, Russell King <>,, Thomas Gleixner <>, Tony Luck <>,, Yoshinori Sato <>,,,,,,,,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc15 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 06/14/2011 12:08 PM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> The PC parallel port Kconfig as acquired one of those messy terms to
> describe it's architecture dependencies:
>        depends on (!SPARC64 || PCI) && !SPARC32 && !M32R && !FRV && \
>                (!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300 && !AVR32 && !BLACKFIN
> This isn't just ugly - it also almost certainly describes the dependencies
> too coarse grainedly.  This is an attempt at cleaing the mess up.
> I tried to faithfully aproximate the old behaviour but the existing
> behaviour seems inacurate if not wrong for some architectures or platforms.
> To improve on this I rely on comments from other arch and platforms
> maintainers.  Any system that can take PCI multi-IO card or has a PC-style
> parallel port on the mainboard should probably should now do a
> select HAVE_PC_PARPORT.  And some arch Kconfig files should further
> restrict the use of HAVE_PC_PARPORT to only those platforms that actually
> need it.

Why on earth restrict it like that?  It's just a device driver, like
more or less any other device driver...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>