On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:23:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:34PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Monday 14 April 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:16:59PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > It's plain wrong for PCMCIA to select HAVE_IDE that implies e.g. the > > > > availability of an asm/ide.h > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > 9cdb66112488bc0c6e1d528444d3ba30d5b0487f diff --git > > > > a/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig b/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig > > > > index 8b22281..519b4ff 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig > > > > @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ config PCMCIA_DEBUG > > > > config PCMCIA > > > > tristate "16-bit PCMCIA support" > > > > select CRC32 > > > > - select HAVE_IDE > > > > default y > > > > > > I did this when introducing HAVE_IDE. > > > But I do not recall why and the rationale for removing it > > > seems fine to me. > > > > IIRC it was needed for some arm platforms which don't select HAVE_IDE > > explicetely but I don't know if this is still the case, pinging Russell. > > It's definitely bogus since it can cause compile breakage on > architectures like avr32. > > And whatever it should have fixed should be fixed properly.
I'd suggest backing out the entire change which introduced HAVE_IDE then - rather than doing it piecemeal and bringing up questions about it which are unanswerable (which is the case of Bart's question of me.) -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: _______________________________________________ Linux PCMCIA reimplementation list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pcmcia
