Re: [PATCH] kconfig: untangle EXPERT and EMBEDDED

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:

> > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/Kconfig b/drivers/hid/Kconfig
> > > index a421abd..73c2d39 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hid/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/hid/Kconfig
> > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ menu "Special HID drivers"
> > >  config HID_A4TECH
> > >         tristate "A4 tech mice" if EXPERT
> > >         depends on USB_HID
> > > -       default !EXPERT
> > > +       default !EMBEDDED
> > >         ---help---
> > >         Support for A4 tech X5 and WOP-35 / Trust 450L mice.
> > > 
> > > and the other HID drivers...
> > > 
> > 
> > Um, no, HID_A4TECH is still only configurable for CONFIG_EXPERT with this 
> > patch.  Jerome's premise is that this should be configurable for 
> > CONFIG_EMBEDDED instead.  Please read what he wrote.
> 
> Yes, you still need EXPERT to expose the option, but then EMBEDDED will
> switch the default. You only need to set EMBEDDED=y to do that though,
> that's what this little thing called "select" does.
> 

Until such time as EMBEDDED is decoupled from EXPERT.  So to preserve the 
eventual goal of separating EMBEDDED and EXPERT entirely, this would need 
to be a tristate if EXPERT || EMBEDDED.  I'll leave the determination of 
the default to the HID maintainers, it's not my area.

This isn't the first time that Jiri will have had to deal with 
CONFIG_EXPERT usage in this subsystem.

There're other examples of this for x86 for things like serio drivers or 
keyboard drivers.

> Oh, so now we can break backwards compatibility for some cases? What is
> the criteria for those cases? Let me guess at a few;
> 

I think it's fine to break backwards compatibility for options that are 
currently configurable for CONFIG_EXPERT when it only makes sense for 
embedded systems and use CONFIG_EMBEDDED instead.  They better already 
have it enabled and my patch a year ago didn't break it for them.

CONFIG_EXPERT isn't an invitation to be able to configure everything in 
the kernel.

> What do you mean you've considered not reading this pointless thread? You
> wrote it! All the nonsense comes from you. Besides the patch submission,
> which fixes a real problem, this thread HAS been pointless, and wasted a
> lot of my time.
> 

I'm trying to clue you into how we don't break existing configs for users 
who would run make oldconfig on a kernel with your patch.  That's why it's 
nacked and nobody would sanely apply such a patch.

I'll leave the remainder of the thread to you now, thanks.
--
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/