arm Kconfig fixes
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 10 lines · Linux Kernel
ChangeSet 1.1892, 2004/08/27 19:13:44-07:00, [email protected]
[PATCH] arm
KconfigfixesARM dependency and makefile fixes (ACKed by rmk)
diff -Nru a/drivers/char/agp/Kconfig b/drivers/char/agp/Kconfig
drivers/char/agp/Kconfig line 5
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/char/agp/Kconfig +1
-1@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ config AGP - tristate "/dev/agpgart (AGP Support)" if !GART_IOMMU && !M68K + tristate "/dev/agpgart (AGP Support)" if !GART_IOMMU && !M68K && !ARM default y if GART_IOMMU ---help--- AGP (Accelerated Graphics Port) is a bus system mainly used to
This has the opportunity to grow and grow and make things really ugly in all the driver specific Kconfigs each time a new arch switches over to use drivers/Kconfig. Is this really any better than doing this checking in drivers/Kconfig itself and keeping the subdir'd kconfig's somewhat cleaner ?
Even if not, I think I'd actually prefer a whitelist of drivers that *do* support agpgart in the Kconfig, than the above which needs to be added to all the time. Something like if X86 && ALPHA && IA64 should cover it currently. It just seems to me to be a lot more sensible than listing a bunch of stuff which is completely irrelevant.
Dave
Quoted 3 lines · Dave Jones
Even if not, I think I'd actually prefer a whitelist of drivers that *do* support agpgart in the
Kconfig, than the above which needs to be added to all the time. Something like if X86 && ALPHA && IA64 should cover it currently.
PPC
Quoted 6 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 3 lines · Dave Jones
Even if not, I think I'd actually prefer a whitelist of drivers that *do* support agpgart in the
Kconfig, than the above which needs to be added to all the time. Something like if X86 && ALPHA && IA64 should cover it currently.PPC
Bah, I *knew* I'd miss one. I even read the Kconfig twice after missing IA64. I suck. I still stand by my claim that it would look better though.
Dave
Quoted 10 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 6 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 3 lines · Dave Jones
Even if not, I think I'd actually prefer a whitelist of drivers that *do* support agpgart in the
Kconfig, than the above which needs to be added to all the time. Something like if X86 && ALPHA && IA64 should cover it currently.PPC
Bah, I *knew* I'd miss one. I even read the
Kconfigtwice after missing IA64. I suck. I still stand by my claim that it would look better though.
Completely agreed on that one. Negative depencies are a bad idea in general.
Quoted 4 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 2 lines
Bah, I *knew* I'd miss one. I even read the
Kconfigtwice after missing IA64. I suck. I still stand by my claim that it would look better though.Completely agreed on that one. Negative depencies are a bad idea in general.
ACK.
How about adding HAS_AGP into platform Kconfig and making that animal dependent on it?
BTW, AFAICS a legitimate form of negative dependency is && (!FOO || BROKEN) and it's common enough to consider adding a separate
broken if <expression>
to config language. It would be interpreted as && (!<expr> || BROKEN) added to dependencies, but would document the situation better.
Hi,
Quoted 5 lines · On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 [email protected] wrote:
BTW, AFAICS a legitimate form of negative dependency is && (!FOO || BROKEN) and it's common enough to consider adding a separate
broken if <expression>
to config language. It would be interpreted as && (!<expr> || BROKEN) added to dependencies, but would document the situation better.
It looks ok, but the part I wouldn't like is to hardcode this into the parser, if someone comes up with a decent syntax to define this dynamically, it would be ok with me.
bye, Roman