lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [RFC] Kbuild: avoid "make tinyconfig" warnings
Date
On Friday, July 8, 2016 10:41:57 AM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote: 
> 2016-07-06 22:49 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> >> It is already specified by:
> >>
> >> allnoconfig allyesconfig allmodconfig alldefconfig randconfig: $(obj)/conf
> >> $< --$@ $(Kconfig)
> >
> >
> > I don't see that yet. How does this line provide the dependency?
>
>
> "make tinyconfig" works like this:
>
> This means, run "make allnoconfig", then "make tiny.config"
> in this order.

Ok, got it, sorry for being slow here.

> > So, let's ignore my incorrect patch for the moment. Do you have
> > any other idea for how to avoid the warning?
>
>
> Of your four ideas, I do not like the first two,
> but the others sound reasonable.

ok

> > - merge the fragments first and then use the combined fragment as the
> > KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG file.
>
> This is a strait-forward solution.
> I thought of this one, too.
>
>
> > - change merge_config.sh to do a 'savedefconfig' step before applying
> > the fragment, so it doesn't warn about choice statements that are
> > overridden from their default, as opposed to having conflicting choices.
>
> This sounds interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, I have been wondering if we could support merge_config
> as a native feature of Kconfig instead of by a separate shell script.
>
> If we could support KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG for "make oldconfig"
> perhaps merge_config.sh will go away?
> Maybe I am missing something, though.

I agree this sounds really nice, but I see two problems with it:

- at the moment, we always read exactly one input file from the
kconfig tool, and that can be one of
.config
arch/${ARCH}/defconfig
arch/${ARCH}/configs/*_defconfig
the KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG contents
./all{no,yes,mod,def,random}.config
Teaching the tool to have two input files basically means reimplementing
merge_config.sh in C. Definitely doable, and probably nicer than what
we have, but not trivial.
- It doesn't actually solve the problem of the warnings that I'm trying to
address, that would still have to be done on top of the reimplementation.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-08 14:21    [W:0.054 / U:3.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site