Re: Kconfig 'depend' vs. 'select'

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.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@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org