On 28.06.19 20:40, Luis Chamberlain wrote: Hi folks,
> The solution puts forward a mechanism to add a kconfig_symb where we> are > 100% certain we have a direct module --> config mapping. Okay, but IIRC this will add more boilerplate those modules. And I wonder whether target binaries are the right place for those things at all - IMHO that's something one wants to derive from the source code / .config's. At least in the cases I'm imagining, I don't even have an actual kernel running on the corresponding target yet. (eg. in crosscompile situations) OTOH, a more pressing problem for me is identifying the right drivers and corresponding config options (usually plural, as certain subsystems have to be enabled, too) by hardware information like DT, ACPI, DMI, PCI, etc. For now, I have to do that manually, which is pretty time consuming. In embedded world, we often have scenarios where we want a really minimal kernel, but need to enable/disable certain hi-level peripherals in the middle of the project (eg. "oh, we also need ethernet, but we wanna drop usb"). There we'll have to find out what actual chip is, its corresponding driver, required subsystems, etc, and also kick off everything we don't need anymore. I've thought about implementing some actual dependency tracking (at least recording the auto-enabled symbols), but didn't expect that to become practically usable anytime soon, so I went for a different approach: writing a little tool that allows modeling hilevel features and corresponding (potentially board-specific) config syms, so the whole .config for certain board and usecase can be autogenerated by just some small meta-configuration: https://github.com/metux/kmct Maybe this could also help for your usecase ? --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering i...@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
