[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/5] kconfig: introduce the "imply" keyword
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 23:10 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > And in your example BAR is bool, right? Does the above get more
> > complicated if BAR would be tristate?
> If BAR=m then implying BAZ from FOO=y will force BAZ to y or n, 
> bypassing the restriction provided by BAR like "select" does.  This is 
> somewhat questionable for "select" to do that, and the code emits a 
> warning when "select" bypasses a direct dependency set to n, but not 
> when set to m. For now "imply" simply tries to be consistent with 
> the "select" behavior.

Side note: yes, one can select a symbol that's missing one or more
dependencies. But since Kconfig has two separate methods to describe
relations (ie, selecting and depending) there's logically the
possibility of conflict. So we need a rule to resolve that conflict.
That rule is: "select" beats "depends on". I don't think that this rule
is less plausible than the opposite rule.

Paul Bolle

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-29 00:10    [W:0.064 / U:8.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site