From: Haicheng Li <redacted>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:57:38 +0800

On 09/28/2012 02:46 PM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Haicheng Li<redacted>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0800

quoted

On 09/28/2012 06:09 AM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

Look at how other people submit patches, do any other patch
submissions
look like your's having all of this metadata in the message body:

I'm sorry for it.

quoted

As for this specific patch:

quoted

-	depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH
+	depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH = PCH_GBE

This is not the correct way to ensure that the module'ness of one
config option meets the module'ness requirements of another.
The correct way is to say something like "&&   (PCH_GBE || PCH_GBE=n)"

This case is a little bit tricky than usual, with PCH_PTP selected,
the valid config would be either "PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=PCH_GBE=m" or
"PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=PCH_GBE=y", and PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH depends on
PCH_GBE.

And a simple "&&  PCH_GBE" should accomplish this, no?

No sir. it's actually same with the original Kconfig (by a if
PCH_GBE"), it just failed with this config:

        CONFIG_PCH_GBE=y
        CONFIG_PCH_PTP=y
        CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK=m

The correct fix is to make the Kconfig entry for PCH_PTP use
a "select PTP_1588_CLOCK" instead of "depends PTP_1588_CLOCK"

I'll apply this fix.

The is another, extremely convoluted, way to do this, which is
what the SFC driver does which is:

depends on SFC && PTP_1588_CLOCK && !(SFC=y && PTP_1588_CLOCK=m)

but that looks horrible to me.