On Mar 20 2007 22:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> Maybe not "bool" vs "mbool", but it might be nice to have
>>
>> bool FB_PS3
>> depends strictly on FB
>>
>> ie a "depends strictly" refuses to upgrade a bool dependency from "m" to
>> "y", while a regular depends allows it.
>>
>> Or something.. The "depends strictly on X" thing would really be just a
>> mental shorthand for "depends on (X)=y" (it's actually longer to type, but
>> I think it's a bit more intuitive, thus "mental shortcut").
>
>I've been thinking about this a bit more...
>
>Kconfig knows about the following types:
> o bool
> o tristate
> o string
> o hex
> o int
>
>However, from a semantical point of view, they can be subdivided in 2 classes:
> 1. driver/subsystem/library enablers (i.e. things that are used in a Makefile
> to decide whether to compile a unit or not):
> o tristate (y=builtin, m=loadable, n=disabled)
> o bool (y=builtin, n=disabled)
> 2. options (i.e. things that control some features, limits, or default
> values):
> o bool (y=true, n=false)
> o string (literal)
> o hex (literal)
> o int (literal)
>
>The confusion arises from the 2 different semantics for `bool': for the former,
>a `depends on' obviously cannot be `builtin' if the dependency is `modular',
>while for the latter, it can be `true' if the dependency is `modular'.
I think it was once (is still?) possible to have something like
<M> Foo
<*> Bar
which would mean: include bar.o into foo.ko. If one chose to
<M> Foo
<M> Bar
you'd get foo.ko and bar.ko, with a modinfo dependency of course.
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
