On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:12:56AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jani Nikula > > <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:25 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> BTW how about adding a new Kconfig option to hide the details of > > > >> ( BAR || !BAR) ? as Jason already explained and suggested, this will > > > >> make it easier for the users and developers to understand the actual > > > >> meaning behind this tristate weird condition. > > > >> > > > >> e.g have a new keyword: > > > >> reach VXLAN > > > >> which will be equivalent to: > > > >> depends on VXLAN && !VXLAN > > > > > > > > I'd love to see that, but I'm not sure what keyword is best. For your > > > > suggestion of "reach", that would probably do the job, but I'm not > > > > sure if this ends up being more or less confusing than what we have > > > > today. > > > > > > Ah, perfect bikeshedding topic! > > > > > > Perhaps "uses"? If the dependency is enabled it gets used as a > > > dependency. > > > > That seems to be the best naming suggestion so far > > What I don't like about "uses" is that it doesn't convey the conditional > dependency. It could be mistaken as being synonymous to "select". > > What about "depends_if" ? The rationale is that this is actually a > dependency, but only if the related symbol is set (i.e. not n or empty). I think that stretches the common understanding of 'depends' a bit too far.. A depends where the target can be N is just too strange. Somthing incorporating 'optional' seems like a better choice 'optionally uses' seems particularly clear and doesn't overload existing works like depends or select Jason
