On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 04:23:17AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:35:48AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:17:22AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Manuel Bouyer > >> >> <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:50:03AM +0000, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > >> >> >> Module Name: src > >> >> >> Committed By: uebayasi > >> >> >> Date: Sat Oct 11 09:50:03 UTC 2014 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Modified Files: > >> >> >> src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: XEN3_DOM0 std.xen > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Log Message: > >> >> >> Don't include std.ath_hal for XEN3_DOMU. > >> >> > > >> >> > Why ? > >> >> > We still support PCI pass-through, so we could have a ath in a domU > >> >> > >> >> In that case you have to enable xpci/pci at first. > >> >> > >> >> Including "std.ath_hal" means that you pull in ath device code in your > >> >> kernel. But you don't have no parent buses. This might be OK for > >> >> ath(4), but in general, it means that config(1) doesn't resolve > >> >> dependency, and your kernel may be bloated by unnecessary code. > >> > > >> > why isn't this compiled in only when ath(4) is inclued in config file ? > >> > isn't that what attributes are for ? > >> > >> I don't understand. If you say "config file", is it files.* > >> (definition) or std.* (selection)? > > > > OK, I see. But I still think config should be able to include theses > > only if ath or athn is there; wouldn't adding " & ath" at appropriate places > > in files.ath_hal be enough for this to happen ? > > Instead of: > > ath_common_files.c ath & athn > > You can do: > > define ath: ath_common > define athn: ath_common > define ath_common > ath_common_files.c ath_common > > I don't understand why you need & or | or those expressions. I think > >99% are file with dependency. Or do you want more complex world like > this? > > http://nxr.netbsd.org/source/xref/src-freebsd/sys/conf/files
No, I just want e.g. "options ATHHAL_AR5210" to be a noop if ath(4) is not inclued in the kernel config file. This way you don't need to mess with these options at all, unless you really want a stripped-down kernel. -- Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --