* [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language
@ 2012-09-14 0:14 Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-14 1:49 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-09-14 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Marek; +Cc: linux-kbuild, Steven Rostedt, LKML
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]
Hi all,
I have noticed that we use the following paradigm quite a bit theses days:
config <something
select HAVE_<config1>
config <config1>
depends on HAVE_<config1>
or similar
I was wondering if it would make sense to replace this with:
config <something
enable <config1>
config <config1>
depends on enabled
The advantage of this is that we would not have all the HAVE_ config
names in our .config files and the generated include files. Of course,
if config1 does not depend on "enabled", then the "enable <config1>"
would have no effect (we may want to warn about this).
Comments?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language
2012-09-14 0:14 [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-09-14 1:49 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2012-09-14 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: Michal Marek, linux-kbuild, LKML
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 10:14 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have noticed that we use the following paradigm quite a bit theses days:
>
> config <something
> select HAVE_<config1>
>
> config <config1>
> depends on HAVE_<config1>
>
> or similar
>
> I was wondering if it would make sense to replace this with:
>
> config <something
> enable <config1>
>
> config <config1>
> depends on enabled
>
> The advantage of this is that we would not have all the HAVE_ config
> names in our .config files and the generated include files. Of course,
> if config1 does not depend on "enabled", then the "enable <config1>"
> would have no effect (we may want to warn about this).
>
> Comments?
I always hated those HAVE_* configs, especially because they were always
a source of confusion when asking someone if something is enabled...
Them: "The function tracer doesn't work, I don't see any debugfs files"
me: "Do you have FUNCTION_TRACER enabled?"
Them: "Yes, I checked"
me: "You have *FUNCTION_TRACER* not *HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER*?"
Them: "Oh, no I just have HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER"
BAH!
If you can make 'enable' work, I would definitely Ack converting over to
it.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-14 1:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-09-14 0:14 [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language Stephen Rothwell
2012-09-14 1:49 ` Steven Rostedt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®