Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:48036 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756612Ab1DFUTb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:19:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill From: Johannes Berg To: Paul Bolle Cc: "John W. Linville" , Mark Brown , Antonio Ospite , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, openezx-devel@lists.openezx.org, Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marek Vasut , Guiming Zhuo In-Reply-To: <1302121040.4090.18.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1302081679-812-1-git-send-email-ospite@studenti.unina.it> <20110406141131.GC2810@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1302099669.4090.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1302113542.22852.7.camel@x61.thuisdomein> <20110406183837.GI11941@tuxdriver.com> <1302120620.22852.22.camel@x61.thuisdomein> <1302120922.4090.17.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1302121040.4090.18.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:19:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1302121164.4090.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:17 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:10 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 14:38 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > The syntax may seem strange, > > > > > > It does! > > > > > > > but basically it just says "don't let me by y if RFKILL is m" > > > > > > ... but, besides that, I can be any value. So in effect it's shorthand > > > for > > > depends on RFKILL=y || RFKILL=m && m || RFKILL=n > > > > > > (which actually looks equally strange). Is that correct? > > > > I don't think it is, I believe that an expression like "RFKILL=y" has a > > bool type, and a tristate type value that depends on a bool type can > > still take the value m. > > Err, which is of course perfectly fine since if RFKILL is built in this > can be any value, and in the RFKILL=m case you force it to m by making > it depend on m directly. So yes, you're right. Whoops ... sorry about the talking to self ... I still think the original is easier to understand. After all, just depends on RFKILL is trivial to understand even with tristates. And knowing that RFKILL will provide no-op inlines when it is unconfigured, you add depends on !RFKILL for that case. johannes