Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Kconfig: Introduce "uses" keyword

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:01:40AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> > On 4/22/20 2:13 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> This is really a conditional dependency. That's all this is about.
> > >>> So why not simply making it so rather than fooling ourselves? All that 
> > >>> is required is an extension that would allow:
> > >>>
> > >>> 	depends on (expression) if (expression)
> > >>>
> > >>> This construct should be obvious even without reading the doc, is 
> > >>> already used extensively for other things already, and is flexible 
> > >>> enough to cover all sort of cases in addition to this particular one.
> > >>
> > >> Okay, you convinced me. Now you only need to convince whoever is doing
> > >> the actual work of implementing this stuff. ;)
> > > 
> > > What about this:
> > > 
> > > Subject: [PATCH] kconfig: allow for conditional dependencies
> > > 
> > > This might appear to be a strange concept, but sometimes we want
> > > a dependency to be conditionally applied. One such case is currently
> > > expressed with:
> > > 
> > > 	depends on FOO || !FOO
> > > 
> > > This pattern is strange enough to give one's pause. Given that it is
> > > also frequent, let's make the intent more obvious with some syntaxic 
> > > sugar by effectively making dependencies optionally conditional.
> > > This also makes the kconfig language more uniform.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > If we must do something here, I prefer this one.
> > 
> > Nicolas, would you do another example, specifically for
> > CRAMFS_MTD in fs/cramfs/Kconfig, please?
> 
> I don't see how that one can be helped. The MTD dependency is not 
> optional.

Could it be done as 

config MTD
   depends on CRAMFS if CRAMFS_MTD

?

Jason