On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:04:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:11:45AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:10:41AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > >... > > > > > > > > config A > > > > bool "a" > > > > > > > > config B > > > > bool "b" > > > > depends on A > > > > > > > > config C > > > > bool "c" > > > > require B > > > > > > > > The require dependency will have impact on visibility. > > > > C shall only be visible if all symbols it require are > > > > visible. Note that visible does not imply 'chosen'. > > > > In this case C would be visible when A is chosen. > > > > > > > > When the user then choose C and B is not chosen > > > > then the user is prompted to choose B. > > > > > > > > So user has to chose B in order to have C chosen. > > > >... > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > Given: > > > > > > config A > > > tristate "a" > > > > > > config B > > > tristate "b" > > > depends on A > > > > > > config C > > > bool "c" > > > require B > > > > > > CONFIG_A=m > > > > > > > > > Will C be visible? > > If you followed my description then you would see > > that the visibility of C are determineded by the dependencies > > of C (none in this case) and the dependencies of the symbol > > it requires. In this case B. B dpens on A and A equals m so B is > > visible thus C is visible. > > *shudder* So let me explain it with some other words: B is visible because A=m C is visible because B is visible. Simple. > > > > The underlying problem is that we use bool for two different cases: > > > - non-modular driver (answer would be "no") > > > - enable feature in driver (answer would be "depends on the value of D") > > Lets try to agree on the semantics with bools first please. > > When we have that in place lets extend it to modular - OK? > > I doubt the "extension" works this way since most of the interesting > cases are with tristates. > > But OK, here's some fun with bools: > > config X86 > def_bool y > > config A > bool "a" > > config B > bool "b" > depends on A > > config D > bool "d" > depends on !B if X86 > > config E > bool "e" > > config C > bool "c" > depends on D || E > requires B > > Given: > - CONFIG_A=y > - CONFIG_B=n > - CONFIG_D=y > - CONFIG_E=n > > Will C be visible? The above has a syntax error. A 'depends on' cannot have an if caluse. And I did not get your point either. Are you trying to say that we cannot improve kconfig to better express the dependencies or what is your point? Puzzeled... 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
