On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:06:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Many ARM sub-architectures use prompts followed by "if" conditional, > but it is wrong. > > Please notice the difference between > > config ARCH_FOO > bool "Foo SoCs" if ARCH_MULTI_V7 > > and > > config ARCH_FOO > bool "Foo SoCs" > depends on ARCH_MULTI_V7 > > These two are *not* equivalent! > > In the former statement, it is not ARCH_FOO, but its prompt that > depends on ARCH_MULTI_V7. So, it is completely valid that ARCH_FOO > is selected by another, but ARCH_MULTI_V7 is still disabled. As it is > not unmet dependency, Kconfig never warns. This is probably not what > you want. > > The former should be used only when you need to do so, and you really > understand what you are doing. (In most cases, it should be wrong!) > > For enabling/disabling sub-architectures, the latter is always correct. > > As a good side effect, this commit fixes some entries over 80 columns > (mach-imx, mach-integrator, mach-mbevu). > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> > --- > > I hope this patch is applied to ARM-SOC, but am CCing Kbuild ML > because the correct understanding of Kconfig is required for this patch. Thanks for cleaning this up. As per a response to another ARM-SoC-wide patch: My suggestion is to split this patch up. In its current form it seems bound to cause some merge conflicts at some point. If you were to submit the mach-shmobile portion as a separate patch I would be happy to queue it up. That aside, I don't have any objections to the mach-shmobile change. So if you wish to proceed with a large patch then for the mach-shmobile portion: Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas at verge.net.au>
