On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:41 +0100
>
> > So we could do:
> >
> > config foo
> > tristate "do you want foo?"
> > depends on USB && BAR
> > module
> > obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) += foo.o
> > foo-y := file1.o file2.o
> > help
> > foo will allow you to explode your PC
> ...
> > Does this fit what you had in mind?
>
> Yes it does.
>
> Now I'll ask if you think embedding this information in one of the C
> files for a module would be even nicer?
I have no good idea for the syntax and I and not sure what is gained
by reducing a driver with one file.
Agreed - simple drivers would then be a single file - and thats a good argument.
>
> Also, we need to make sure we can properly handle top-level
> container-like items. For example, where would menuconfigs like
> NETDEV_10000 go if we adopt this kind of scheme?
If it makes sense to group stuff inside a menuconfig it would
also make sense to put the same modules in a subdirectory.
And then we would have the menuconfig in the Kconfig
file that would source the others.
So I do not see this as an issue for the 'embedded' syntax described above.
Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
