On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Randy Dunlap wrote: > 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? I don't see how that one can be helped. The MTD dependency is not optional. Nicolas
