10 Mar
2016
10 Mar
'16
6:45 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 06:19:58PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
My point is that you've written the above in a very confusing manner - I have to think about what it means while just a dependency would be clear and obvious.
Are you asking about the intent/functionality or just a simplification to do this (un-tested): depends on DW_DMAC_CORE && (SND_SST_IPC_ACPI = n)
A=n is usually written like !A, too. So a simpler form would be
depends on DW_DMAC_CORE && !SND_SST_IPC_ACPI
Right, that was what I was looking for - the way the patch was written was really obscure.