Re: [PATCH v7 00/11] kconfig: Add support for conflict resolution

[Jude Gyimah]

Quick follow-up. On our end, our SAT-solver implementations can be 
easily adapted to accommodate your future toolchain selection 
refactorings. Also, could you share with us the timelines for your 
refactorings so we can plan and deliver the adjusted SAT-solver patches. 
Best Regards, Jude Gyimah

On 2/11/25 01:46, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:43 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:00:52PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > Thanks for this, but I have no plans to merge the SAT solver.
> > >
> > > The reason is that my future plan is to move toolchain selection
> > > to the Kconfig stage instead of specifying it statically from the command line.
> > That makes sense.
> >
> > > This approach was suggested by Linus [1], and to achieve that,
> > > the shell evaluation must be dynamically re-evaluated [2].
> > Sure.
> >
> > > The SAT solver would likely conflict with this plan. At least due to the
> > > significant amount of additional code, which would be an obstacle.
> > I can't see how the toolchain selection, if set on Kconfig can't be
> > leveraged later to enable / disable the SAT solver, however I can
> > see the amount of code shuffling incurred to be an extra hurdle to
> > address and a preference to leave that for later.
> >
> > In other words, I susepct it is still possible to evaluate to
> > add support for the SAT solver post toolchain kconfig integration.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> It depends on how the dynamic shell evaluation is implemented.
> This is not limited to bool/tristate, but SAT solver only works for
> those two types.