On 4/22/20 2:13 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This is really a conditional dependency. That's all this is about. >>> So why not simply making it so rather than fooling ourselves? All that >>> is required is an extension that would allow: >>> >>> depends on (expression) if (expression) >>> >>> This construct should be obvious even without reading the doc, is >>> already used extensively for other things already, and is flexible >>> enough to cover all sort of cases in addition to this particular one. >> >> Okay, you convinced me. Now you only need to convince whoever is doing >> the actual work of implementing this stuff. ;) > > What about this: > > ----- >8 > Subject: [PATCH] kconfig: allow for conditional dependencies > > This might appear to be a strange concept, but sometimes we want > a dependency to be conditionally applied. One such case is currently > expressed with: > > depends on FOO || !FOO > > This pattern is strange enough to give one's pause. Given that it is > also frequent, let's make the intent more obvious with some syntaxic > sugar by effectively making dependencies optionally conditional. > This also makes the kconfig language more uniform. > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hi, If we must do something here, I prefer this one. Nicolas, would you do another example, specifically for CRAMFS_MTD in fs/cramfs/Kconfig, please? thanks. -- ~Randy
