Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

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

On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> > On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> >> config A
> >> >>         bool-or-tristate "option A"
> >> >>         depends on !PLATFORM_X || HELPER_N_ON_PLATFORM_X
> [...]
> > Umm, if A requires helper code N (which is available only on platform X),
> [And, I assumed, 'A' works without helper 'N' on all platforms except
> 'X'.
> This is a synthetic example which might not have a real-world application.]

Well, it is not relevant / equivalent to any of the four symbols that caused the
warnings that this thread is about, at least.

> > then why/how do we want A to depend on platforms _other_ than X?
>
> The expression means:  'A' can be enabled on all platforms.  Except on
> platform_X, there it can only be enabled if helper_N is built too.
> [...]
> No.  I meant "(X && N_ON_X) || Any_one_platform_other_than_X" above.

Yeah, and as I said, this was totally *not* the problem being discussed /
solved in this thread (and by that patch).