On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:16:15PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:27:57AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > How likely is this to get out of date? Are people going to > > > remember to patch this when they add a feature to their > > > architecture? If they found out they had work to do by reading > > > this file, which is the goal, then they'll likely remember to edit > > > the file; however, if they find the feature and fix it without > > > knowing about the file, will someone notice? > > > > > > Is there any way we can *generate* this file from Kconfig? Can we > > > extract the necessary "this is possible to enable" or "this arch > > > selects this symbol" information from Kconfig, and together with > > > the list of symbols for features needing architecture support, > > > generate the table? > > > > Just tried this. Looks like it's pretty trivial for most of these > > features: just make ARCH=thearch allyesconfig, then look for the > > config symbol in the result. > > No, that's not nearly enough to do a correct support matrix, for > example due to subarchitectures that aren't included in an > allyesconfig.
Still feasible to automate with a bit more scripting. > There are also many #define driven features. It'd be nice to move those over to Kconfig. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
