Hi Masahiro, On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 10:36, Masahiro Yamada <masahi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:44 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:32:03PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:04 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Masahiro, > > > > > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada <masahi...@kernel.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +Masahiro Yamada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know. > > > > > This seems a shorthand in Kconfig level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config SPL_' | wc > > > > > 540 1080 24872 > > > > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config TPL_' | wc > > > > > 163 326 7462 > > > > > > > > > > If hundreds of duplications are not manageable, > > > > > go for it, but kconfig will be out-of-sync from the > > > > > upstream Kconfig. > > > > > > > > Yes that's right, it is a shorthand in Kconfig. > > > > > > > > The counts above understand the problem a little since quite a few > > > > CONFIG options without an SPL prefix are used in SPL. We don't have > > > > tools to estimate how many, and we sometimes add a new symbol to 'gain > > > > control' of a particular feature in a phase. > > > > > > > > My intent in sending this patch was to check whether this support for > > > > configuring multiple related builds (or something like it) could go > > > > upstream, which for Kconfig is Linux, I believe. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > This complexity is absolutely unneeded for Linux. > > > > > > So, the answer is no. > > > > Well, I think Simon summarized himself a bit shorter here than he did in > > the patch itself. So, to what extent does the kernel want to consider > > all of the other projects using the Kconfig language and their needs / > > use cases? > > > > -- > > Tom > > > > In principle, only features that are useful for Linux.
I'm disappointed in this attitude. It is the same thing that we saw from the DT bindings until recently. > > Kconfig has small piece of code that is useful for other projects, > for example, > > #ifndef CONFIG_ > #define CONFIG_ "CONFIG_" > #endif > > which might be useful for Buildroot, but this is exceptionally small. How about refactoring patches that would make a possible implementation easier to maintain, like [1] ? Would they be acceptable? > > > The multi-phase is too cluttered, and that is not what Linux wants to have. Clearly it is not useful to Linux, which only has one build. Regards, Simon [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230212231638.1134219-61-...@chromium.org/