Should the HAVE_KERNEL_PLL conditional be abolished?

[Eric S. Raymond]

Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net>:
> The "HAVE_KERNEL_PLL" is used for both of them even though there is nothing 
> PLL related to the first usage.

I'm aware.  There's a separate HAVE_KERNEL_PPS that conditionalizes the
code for the second case.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.