Re: Fix allnoconfig on arm with small tweak to kconfig?
From: Dan Kegel
Date: Mon Sep 13 2004 - 10:39:41 EST
Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:53:33AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
'make allnoconfig' generates a broken .config on arm because
none of the boolean CPU types get selected.
ARCH_RPC *does* get selected ok, and I can make CPU_SA110 the
default if ARCH_RPC, but that doesn't help, since allnoconfig
sets all booleans that are exposed to the user to false, so
CPU_SA110 remains false.
allnoconfig is broken. It doesn't generate a legal configuration on
this platform.
I think that's what I said. I guess you're saying it more forcefully;
you seem to be implying "the basic idea of allnoconfig is broken."
There are cases where you have the choice of selecting several options
and you may select one or more. Zero options selected is not valid.
Unfortunately, Kconfig does not provide a way to express this.
I think that's also what I said.
I tried it (see patch below), but couldn't get it to work in first
few tries. Can someone who understands kconfig have a look?
I don't think hacking around allnoconfig works - it means that we
have to decide on a default for every configuration. ARCH_RPC is
only one such small case. There's loads more.
I guess it depends on your goals. My goal is to use allnoconfig
as a toolchain regression test. For each arch, I want an easy way
to build some kernel (any kernel!) for that arch. ARCH_RPC
is the default on arm (yes, I know you think the whole
concept of defaults on arm is broken), so it's the only one that
needs fixing.
Any feedback from people who don't think allnoconfig is a useless idea?
Thanks,
Dan
--
My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/