LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kbuild question
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:22:15 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <92E19AC8-F1D4-48AC-85DF-B59FE2F37CD4@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070218192535.GA2425@uranus.ravnborg.org>


On Feb 18, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

>>>
>>> Sure, on powerpc for some of the embedded sub-architectures you  
>>> can only
>>> select a single board to build for.  For a lot of people this is  
>>> sufficient,
>>> however we are moving towards a world where you can easily build  
>>> in support
>>> for multiple boards into a single kernel.
>>>
>>> I'd like to have it such that if I'm only building support for  
>>> one board
>>> (CONFIG_ONLY_HAVE_ONE, not going to call it that, but for this  
>>> discussion its
>>> sufficient), you get a choice menu from Kconfig enforcing the  
>>> ability to only
>>> select one board.  However if !CONFIG_ONLY_HAVE_ONE than you can  
>>> select
>>> multiple boards to build into your kernel.
>>>
>>> if CONFIG_ONLY_HAVE_ONE is set we can optimize out the runtime  
>>> checks that get
>>> added for handling the multiple board case.
>>
>> On m68k we have the same problem, but what I'm what I'm  
>> considering is to
>> add a new mode for choice groups - at least one must be selected and
>> kconfig generates the extra information if only one is selected.
>
> How about extendign the current 'option' syntax to do this?
> So we could do something like:
>
> choice
> 	prompt "choice prompt"
> 	default VAL_FIRST
> 	option multivalue if !CONFIG_ONLY_HAVE_ONE
>
> config VAL_FIRST
> 	bool "first"
>
> config VAL_SECOND
> 	bool "second"
>
> endchoice
>
> It seems to fit well with how option is used today, and extends  
> current
> syntax nicely.

This works for me, however I dont have the first clue about hacking  
on kconfig code.

I'm happy to test out a patch if one of you guys wouldn't mind  
working something up.. or point me and what I should look at to do this.

- k

      reply	other threads:[~2007-03-15 15:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-15 19:18 Kumar Gala
2007-02-15 22:33 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-02-15 23:44   ` Kumar Gala
2007-02-16  8:50     ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-02-16 10:23 ` Roman Zippel
2007-02-16 14:14   ` Kumar Gala
2007-02-18 17:16     ` Roman Zippel
2007-02-18 19:25       ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-03-15 15:22         ` Kumar Gala [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=92E19AC8-F1D4-48AC-85DF-B59FE2F37CD4@kernel.crashing.org \
    --to=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
    --subject='Re: kbuild question' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).