On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:16:48 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:58:40PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > Though transitioning back would probably just create more misery. > > > It's a real shame that ACPI doesn't have standards for the machine > > > descriptions here like DT does, it'd cut down on the amount of stuff > > > that needs configuring. > > > True. Although I don't think ACPI is the center of the mess in this > > case, but rather too many kconfigs is it. > > It's the source of all the individual board Kconfigs - we can't just > have an equivalent of the of-graph card - and then the explosion of > board configs then pushes to have more of the other options user > selectable to let people make the list more manageable. OK, point taken. > > We should begin with thinking of which entries (and layer) to be > > selectable, and which not. > > I'd say either just all the individual machines like it was or all the > SoCs. If it's the SoCs it prevents people making really tiny configs, > though I'm not sure who cares. If it's the machines then you get a lot > of options but I don't know that this is a problem, it's not like end > users are routinely configuring their kernel. It might sound contradicting to my previous statement, but the number of selections itself isn't a big problem. The problem is rather that multiple options have to be selected for reaching to the point to enable one feature on your machine. So, I agree that these two representations would be suitable, and the usual solution is the firmer, to expose *only* individual machine drivers as selectable. (Or, at most, we can have kconfig entries just filtering in addition.) Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel