Hi Kumar, Thanks for your comments.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 09:41:54 -0500 Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:24 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > We cannot put the unsetting of config options in the Kconfig file, nor > > the integer or string options. > > > > I checked that after this we get the same .config files generated (except > > for the addition of the new PPC64_DEFCONFIG* config options. > > > > Any thoughts? > > --- > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 + > > arch/powerpc/configs/Kconfig | 295 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/powerpc/configs/ppc64_defconfig | 301 > > +--------------------------------- > > arch/powerpc/configs/ppc64e_defconfig | 297 > > +-------------------------------- > > 4 files changed, 302 insertions(+), 593 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/Kconfig > > Am I missing something here, isn't this a bit of a maintenance pain if > symbol names change? I don't think it is any worse than what we have, and in fact may be better. Currently if someone renames a config option, they usually do nothing about the defconfigs, this way, at least if the option is in configs/Kconfig, they may update it. > Also, how much of a benefit is this? There has been some discussion about Anton adding 2 new defconfigs that are very similar to the current defconfigs. This is an attempt to reduce the amount of unnecessary repetition and churn. A similar thing could be done for other sets of similar defconfig files. There was a plan a few years ago to replace the defconfigs with Kconfig fragments and this would be a step along that path. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
pgpAck7jwVjF_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
