Re: distributed module configuration

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:41 +0100
> 
> > So we could do:
> > 
> > config foo
> > 	tristate "do you want foo?"
> > 	depends on USB && BAR
> > 	module
> > 	  obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) += foo.o
> > 	  foo-y := file1.o file2.o
> > 	help
> > 	  foo will allow you to explode your PC
>  ...
> > Does this fit what you had in mind?
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> Now I'll ask if you think embedding this information in one of the C
> files for a module would be even nicer?
I have no good idea for the syntax and I and not sure what is gained
by reducing a driver with one file.
Agreed - simple drivers would then be a single file - and thats a good argument.

> 
> Also, we need to make sure we can properly handle top-level
> container-like items.  For example, where would menuconfigs like
> NETDEV_10000 go if we adopt this kind of scheme?

If it makes sense to group stuff inside a menuconfig it would
also make sense to put the same modules in a subdirectory.
And then we would have the menuconfig in the Kconfig
file that would source the others.

So I do not see this as an issue for the 'embedded' syntax described above.

	Sam
--
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/