[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Automatic Configuration of a Kernel

    --- Emmanuel Fleury <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    > Roman Zippel wrote:
    > >
    > > The basic problem is that maintaining the bulk of
    > autoconfig information
    > > in a separate file is not feasible, it would be a
    > nightmare to maintain.
    > > This means it would be better to integrate this
    > information into Kconfig
    > > and define interface so that external
    > program/scripts (preferably shell
    > > instead of perl) can use that to configure the
    > kernel.
    > >
    > > A simple example could look like this:
    > >
    > > config FOO
    > > bool "foo"
    > > def_auto y
    > Why not directly having a direct reference to the
    > name of the script ?
    > config FOO
    > bool "foo"
    > auto "detect-foo-script"
    > Where you have a specific directory in
    > scripts/autoconfig/ where you
    > store the scripts. Each script output y, n or m.
    > But, it means a hell of scripts (except if we can
    > pass arguments in the
    > auto field: auto "detect-foo-script card-XYZ
    > release-32-or-higher").

    To pass argument it is not a problem we do it like we
    passed the rules in the rules_list(see the function
    exec_rule in auto_conf.c ). The lex parser has to be
    expanded in that way that it gives everything written
    after "auto" to the autoconfig.

    config FOO
    bool "foo"
    auto "detect-foo-script"

    So the new programm will work like that:

    It goes through are the Kconfig as usual. For any
    Option that doesn't have any "auto" a '\n' will be
    given. If there is an "auto" it will execute the
    script that is written after it. I think it might work
    like that. Any suggestion??

    > This scheme seems much simpler to me (and yet not
    > restrictive at all).
    > Of course, each script might have to ask few
    > questions to the user as:
    > Do you want this FOO support ? [y/m/n]:
    > Or (when no module option):
    > Do you want this FOO support ? [y/n]:

    If the script want to ask some question, what will be
    the difference if we write make config.

    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-09-15 15:06    [W:0.021 / U:95.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site