lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: kconfig - a suggestion how to fix the select issue
From
Sam,

> > Given:
> > - CONFIG_A=y
> > - CONFIG_B=n
> > - CONFIG_D=y
> > - CONFIG_E=n
> >
> > Will C be visible?
> The above has a syntax error. A 'depends on' cannot have an
> if caluse.

would you please write logic rules with more neutral language, like

(A || B) && C

or similar. Depencies (forward or backward) can be described as

SYM_FOO <- { # depencies/value

($SYM_DEP1 || !$SYM_DEP2) && $SYM_DEP3=xx
# implicit or
$SYM_DEP4 || $SYM_DEP5

} -> { # selects

SYM_2SELECT1 = $SYM_BAR ? foo_bar : bar_for
SYM_2SELECT2 = bar; SYM_BA; SYM_ZZ

# SYM_BA && SYM_ZZ will have value of SYM_FOO
}

or something.

> And I did not get your point either.

I try to design TUI now for better multidimensional walking/selecting on
the web of symbols and decencies, and i don't get those kconfig
constructs.

> Are you trying to say that we cannot improve kconfig to better
> express the dependencies or what is your point?
>
> Puzzeled...

Thanks.
____


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-04 14:19    [W:0.053 / U:2.736 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site