Hi Masahiro, On 19 January 2015 at 21:52, Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, Alexey, > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:44:16 -0700 > Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will >>>> inevitably end-up with messed up configs. >>>> >>>> Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? >>>> It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a >>>> baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only >>>> put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs. >>>> >>>> This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines >>>> for a particular board. >>>> >>>> This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based >>>> build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot >>>> differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct >>>> me. >>> >>> I started with this approach and Masahiro was not very keen on it. I'm >>> OK with it, particularly as it is already supported, but I wonder >>> whether we can do better. > > > Shall we go with this way? > > It is true that I was not very keen on it at first, > but after discussion with you, I understand that > this is the best solution we can do now in terms of > code maintainability.
Yes I'm OK with it. Clearly there is a need for Kconfig to do better in this area, but I don't believe it is critical. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot