From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
To: "U-Boot Version 2 (barebox)" <barebox@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: can someone explain this CONFIG_COMMANDS, CFG_CMD thing?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:56:07 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912210947530.18397@localhost> (raw)
i'm looking at some of the stuff sascha commented on earlier, like:
$ grep -r CONFIG_MII drivers
drivers/net/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_MIIPHY) += miiphy.o
drivers/net/at91_ether.c:#if defined(CONFIG_MII) || (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_MII)
drivers/net/at91_ether.c:#endif /* defined(CONFIG_MII) || (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_MII) */
drivers/net/at91_ether.c:#if defined(CONFIG_MII) || (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_MII)
$
and i'd like to clarify what any of that is *supposed* to mean.
first, what means "CONFIG_COMMANDS"? that is, in the sense that
you're *bitwise* or'ing it with something else? is that supposed to
be a test that a command has been selected for inclusion? surely
there's a cleaner way to do that.
and what would the difference be between CONFIG_MII and CFG_CMD_MII?
as i read it (and i could be totally out to lunch), something like
CONFIG_MII would be selecting a particular *feature* to build in,
while CFG_CMD_MII would be selecting the actual "mii" command, is that
it?
but should those two selections be independently selectable?
possibly -- i can imagine an argument that that should be true. but
in a perfect world, how should all this be done? personally, i can
imagine selecting *features* one by one and, for each feature,
selecting any of the relevant and associated commands.
so (as a random example), i might first select MII support with
CONFIG_MII, then separately select to include the "mii" command with
CONFIG_CMD_MII. and commands should be Kconfig dependent on their
associated feature, so that there would be no need to test
#if defined(CONFIG_MII) && defined(CONFIG_CMD_MII)
it would be sufficient to test
#if defined(CONFIG_CMD_MII)
or am i completely misreading what should be happening here?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next reply other threads:[~2009-12-21 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-21 14:56 Robert P. J. Day [this message]
2009-12-21 16:23 ` Sascha Hauer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.00.0912210947530.18397@localhost \
--to=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox