Re: kconfig - a suggestion how to fix the select issue

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:11:45AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:10:41AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >...
> > 
> > config A
> >         bool "a"
> > 
> > config B
> >         bool "b"
> >         depends on A
> > 
> > config C
> >         bool "c"
> >         require B
> > 
> > The require dependency will have impact on visibility.
> > C shall only be visible if all symbols it require are
> > visible. Note that visible does not imply 'chosen'.
> > In this case C would be visible when A is chosen.
> > 
> > When the user then choose C and B is not chosen 
> > then the user is prompted to choose B.
> > 
> > So user has to chose B in order to have C chosen.
> >...
> > Comments?
> 
> 
> Given:
> 
> config A
> 	tristate "a"
> 
> config B
> 	tristate "b"
> 	depends on A
> 
> config C
> 	bool "c"
> 	require B
> 
> CONFIG_A=m
> 
> 
> Will C be visible?
If you followed my description then you would see
that the visibility of C are determineded by the dependencies
of C (none in this case) and the dependencies of the symbol
it requires. In this case B. B dpens on A and A equals m so B is
visible thus C is visible.

 
> The underlying problem is that we use bool for two different cases:
> - non-modular driver (answer would be "no")
> - enable feature in driver (answer would be "depends on the value of D")
Lets try to agree on the semantics with bools first please.
When we have that in place lets extend it to modular - OK?

	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/