Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Sun, 26 Feb 2023 23:32:03 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Proposed language extension for multiple builds |
| |
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:04 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Masahiro, > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > +Masahiro Yamada > > > > > > > > > > I do not know. > > This seems a shorthand in Kconfig level. > > > > > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config SPL_' | wc > > 540 1080 24872 > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config TPL_' | wc > > 163 326 7462 > > > > If hundreds of duplications are not manageable, > > go for it, but kconfig will be out-of-sync from the > > upstream Kconfig. > > Yes that's right, it is a shorthand in Kconfig. > > The counts above understand the problem a little since quite a few > CONFIG options without an SPL prefix are used in SPL. We don't have > tools to estimate how many, and we sometimes add a new symbol to 'gain > control' of a particular feature in a phase. > > My intent in sending this patch was to check whether this support for > configuring multiple related builds (or something like it) could go > upstream, which for Kconfig is Linux, I believe. What do you think?
This complexity is absolutely unneeded for Linux.
So, the answer is no.
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |