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
