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

[Oleg Verych]

Sam,

> > Given:
> > - CONFIG_A=y
> > - CONFIG_B=n
> > - CONFIG_D=y
> > - CONFIG_E=n
> > 
> > Will C be visible?
> The above has a syntax error. A 'depends on' cannot have an
> if caluse.

would you please write logic rules with more neutral language, like

(A || B) && C

or similar. Depencies (forward or backward) can be described as

SYM_FOO <- { # depencies/value

  ($SYM_DEP1 || !$SYM_DEP2) && $SYM_DEP3=xx
  # implicit or
  $SYM_DEP4 || $SYM_DEP5

} -> { # selects

  SYM_2SELECT1 = $SYM_BAR ? foo_bar : bar_for
  SYM_2SELECT2 = bar; SYM_BA; SYM_ZZ

# SYM_BA && SYM_ZZ will have value of SYM_FOO
}

or something.

> And I did not get your point either.

I try to design TUI now for better multidimensional walking/selecting on
the web of symbols and decencies, and i don't get those kconfig
constructs.

> Are you trying to say that we cannot improve kconfig to better
> express the dependencies or what is your point?
> 
> Puzzeled...

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/