[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080427215840.0961be81@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:58:40 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kconfig 'depend' vs. 'select'
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to stir up interest in solving a problem that seems to pop
> up frequently. :)
>
> The short story is:
>
> 1) If you say your driver "depend"s on a subsystem providing a set of
> interfaces you need, this doesn't work properly if your driver is
> marked built-in and that subsystem you need is modular for some
> reason.
>
> 2) If you say "select" on some subsystem, to try and solve the
> conflict in #1, that doesn't take care of any dependencies the
> subsystem may have. This can also break the build.
>
> There should be an elegant solution to this problem. But I don't
> think changing how 'select' or 'depend' works is it.
>
> 'depend' as it stands now works fine for purely boolean things like
> "this architecture has or wants FOO". There is no reason to remove
> it or change it's semantics, I think.
how far would "if you DEPENDS on FOO, and FOO is =m, you can only be =m or =n" get us?
or are there hidden traps on this?
(the hard case is if a non-tristate DEPENDS on a tristate, but... that's a trap anyway)
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists