On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:20:00AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 08:49 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:37:35AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > Has anyone suggested this? It seems like it might reduce conflicts > > > in the Kconfig file. > > > > How? The choice normally has one entry for each mach- directory. > > You're still going to have 'source' for each mach- directory, so > > the chances of conflicts are no different. > > The source lines would be mostly static.. In practice, the entries here are mostly static already - the only time that something gets added there is when a new class of machines gets added. > We wouldn't have to modify > Kconfig to add new "select" statements to are entries. People end up > having to send you patches which do something then modify the Kconfig > (or in some cases they don't send them to you which is worse) in order > to reduce conflicts. With this change they wouldn't need to do that. As I say, the only time that these entries get touched is when a new class of machines gets added - and given that people can't read (proven by the number of times people get their entries out of order), they should come through my tree. > > Plus it increases the file count, makes things more indirect, and > > therefore harder to follow. > > True. It's a trade off , but we already have this for the other menu > options further down the Kconfig. Actually, it'll increase the chances of a conflict when a change is made to it - because more machine classes will be visible to any particular patch. If we have two similarly named machine classes added at the same time. I think you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This hasn't been a problem to date. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
