Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

["Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>]

On 5/20/07, Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > A combined patch for all of those on top of 22-rc2 (adding Signed-off-by's
> > > for original authors too):
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
> > > Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@cse.iitk.ac.in>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Adrian already commented on this.  Let me just add that these above
> > changes are in so far *totally wrong* as they remove the "depends on
> > XYZ" which is implied by "select XYZ".
>
> Did you even try this patch?
>
> Did you try to select UCC_GETH and see if UCC_FAST got
> automatically selected or not?
>
> Did you get any build problems (or bogus warnings, for that matter)?
>
> Have you ever looked into arch/.../Kconfig's?
>
> > Remember, "select" is like "depends on", just with the added twist that
> > the 'make snafuconfig' scripts are instructed to (a) not hide the
> > depending option from the user and (b) try to enable the dependency for
> > the user if he tries to enable the depending option.
>
> This is precisely what happens with this patch too.
>
> Believe me, just go ahead and try it.
>
> Report any errors, dissatisfaction, etc, if any.
>
> Thanks.

[ Just to add: ]

You'll learn about the "default .. if .." Kconfig idiom after you try this, but
when this patch works for you, an Acked-by would also be nice, thanks.