[RFC PATCH] Kconfig: Enable Kconfig fragments to be used for defconfig
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Tue Jul 13 19:21:59 EDT 2010
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:04 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> - I haven't figured out a way for the fragment to force an option to
>> be "n", or to set a value, for example "CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT=16".
>> This may require changing the syntax.
>> - It still doesn't resolve dependencies. A solver would help with this.
>> For the time being I work around the problem by running the generated
>> config through 'oldconfig' and looking for differences. If the files
>> differ (ignoring comments and generateconfig_* options) after oldconfig,
>> then the <board>_defconfig target returns a failure. (but leaves the
>> new .config intact so the user can resolve it with menuconfig). This
>> way at least the user is told when a Kconfig fragment is invalid.
> The solver would fix the whole issues with the defconfigs , we wouldn't
> need this Kconfig change .. From my perspective we shouldn't be fooling
> around with anything but the solver approach ..
The solver would complement Kconfig fragments, but it doesn't
implement all the functionality. For instance, it doesn't help a
board config picking up a bunch of options from an SoC or Architecture
config file, especially things that are developer/maintainer choices
as opposed to hard requirements). Solver on its own is an incremental
improvement over what we currently have, but it doesn't solve the
> It just doesn't feel like Kconfig was meant to do this, it feel like
> somewhat of an abuse ..
Why? It uses the Kconfig language itself to specify additional
constraints on the final configuration. Seems to be the essence of
elegance to me. :-)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel