On Monday 09 November 2015 10:56:13 Andrew F. Davis wrote: > On 11/09/2015 07:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Nothing enabled by BATTERY_BQ27XXX depends on I2C, this workaround is not > correct as it prevents BATTERY_BQ27XXX from being built-in when I2C is a > module, there is no reason for this limitation. > > The undefined references are caused by BATTERY_BQ27XXX being built-in AND > its I2C functionality being enabled (BATTERY_BQ27XXX_I2C) while I2C is a > module. Reorganizing this driver is being discussed anyway, but in the > meantime a more correct fix would be along the lines of: > > diff --git a/drivers/power/Kconfig b/drivers/power/Kconfig > index 6de6ec2..d1d32f9 100644 > --- a/drivers/power/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/power/Kconfig > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ config BATTERY_BQ27XXX_I2C > bool "BQ27xxx I2C support" > depends on BATTERY_BQ27XXX > depends on I2C > + depends on !(I2C=m && BATTERY_BQ27XXX=y) > default y > help > Say Y here to enable support for batteries with BQ27xxx (I2C) > chips.
That works too, there is just very little difference in the end here, and it's easier to revert an patch that only introduces a regression than to do a different hack, especially if it's going to be reworked soon anyway. Do you want to submit the above as a fixup to your other patch or should we just do the revert? It would be good to get one of the two into -rc1. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html