On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:41 +0100 > > > So we could do: > > > > config foo > > tristate "do you want foo?" > > depends on USB && BAR > > module > > obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) += foo.o > > foo-y := file1.o file2.o > > help > > foo will allow you to explode your PC > ... > > Does this fit what you had in mind? > > Yes it does. > > Now I'll ask if you think embedding this information in one of the C > files for a module would be even nicer? I have no good idea for the syntax and I and not sure what is gained by reducing a driver with one file. Agreed - simple drivers would then be a single file - and thats a good argument. > > Also, we need to make sure we can properly handle top-level > container-like items. For example, where would menuconfigs like > NETDEV_10000 go if we adopt this kind of scheme? If it makes sense to group stuff inside a menuconfig it would also make sense to put the same modules in a subdirectory. And then we would have the menuconfig in the Kconfig file that would source the others. So I do not see this as an issue for the 'embedded' syntax described above. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
