From: Adrian Bunk Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:25:18 +0000 Subject: Re: architectures with their own "config PCMCIA" Message-Id: <20040807172518.GA25169@fs.tum.de> List-Id: References: <20040807170122.GM17708@fs.tum.de> <20040807181051.A19250@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20040807181051.A19250@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoph Hellwig , wli@holomorphy.com, davem@redhat.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 06:10:51PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 07:01:22PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The following architetures have their own "config PCMCIA" instead of > > including drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig (in 2.6.8-rc3-mm1): > > - m68k > > - s390 > > - sparc > > - sparc64 > > > > Is there any good reason for this, or would a patch to change these > > architectures to include drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig be OK? > > What about switching them to use drivers/Kconfig instead? drivers/Kconfig doesn't source drivers/pcmcia/Kconfig (and m68k already uses drivers/Kconfig). But after a second look, I begin to understand a bit more: Most of the architectures in question even have help text for the PCMCIA option, but the option itself isn't asked. IOW: It's impossible to enable them. Is there eny reason for such options that are never visible nor enabled, or could they be removed? cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed