From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263642AbTDIRSH (for ); Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:18:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263641AbTDIRSH (for ); Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:18:07 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:47580 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263642AbTDIRSF (for ); Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:18:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:29:38 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Roman Zippel cc: linux-kernel Subject: CONFIG_INPUT problems Message-ID: <193480000.1049909378@[10.10.2.4]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org So we seem to have a problem with the way the config stuff deals with CONFIG_INPUT, and I'd like some advice on the best way to fix it. The problem: CONFIG_INPUT was commonly set to "n" in 2.4 kernels (and hence the configs that upgrading people pick up). Even though it defaults to "y" under the 2.5 subsystem, the old config overrides it, which I guess is correct for most things, but it didn't govern keyboard and (by cascade) CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE under 2.4 (I think). The result: Lots of people just get a really screwed up 2.5 kernel that does nothing useful for them. What to do ... I thought about inverting the logic, and creating CONFIG_HEADLESS which is !CONFIG_INPUT basically ... but changing all the stuff depending on CONFIG_INPUT is rather invasive. So I was thinking of something like CONFIG_HEADLESS bool "headless console support default "n" if HEADLESS = y define_bool CONFIG_INPUT = n else define_bool CONFIG_INPUT = y endif or something vaguely along those lines ... except there doesn't seem to be a way I can see to force a config option on from the new config system? So that's actually a more general question, I guess ;-) However, if someone has a better idea on how to not shoot the poor users over CONFIG_INPUT / CONFIG_VT_CONSOLE, I'd be very interested ... M.