Patchwork modify "make menuconfig" output

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Patrick Georgi<patrick@georgi-clan.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 11:10 -0600 schrieb Myles Watson:
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Patrick Georgi<patrick@georgi-clan.de> wrote:
>> > In the mainboard selection, the selected mainboard is printed twice in
>> > certain cases, this patch eliminates the second mention.
>> >
>> > This change might have unintended side-effects, but seems to work okay
>> I'd rather fix the offending boards.  Isn't it board-specific?  Maybe
>> I haven't seen all the cases.
> No, it's specific to the Kconfig source layout:
>
> choice
> config { THE BOARDS }
> config { THE BOARDS' DEPENDENCIES }
> endchoice
>
> To fix that, we'd have to do
> choice
> config { THE BOARDS }
> endchoice
> config { THE BOARDS' DEPENDENCIES }
>
> which doesn't work with the source statement

How about this fix?

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com>

Thanks,
Myles

Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 14:13 -0600 schrieb Myles Watson:
> How about this fix?
I thought about that, but it has the disadvantage that it spreads the
configuration of the board across two files.

I'm not sure what the best fix is...

Patrick

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Patrick Georgi<patrick@georgi-clan.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 14:13 -0600 schrieb Myles Watson:
>> How about this fix?
> I thought about that, but it has the disadvantage that it spreads the
> configuration of the board across two files.
Yes.

I'd like to think that much of the second file will disappear as
CONFIG_USE_DCACHE_RAM and others are moved to their final resting
places.  Then it might make sense to move the last few things like the
mainboard strings into the mainboard/<vendor>/Kconfig file.

> I'm not sure what the best fix is...

I guess the third option is live with it being printed twice.

Thanks,
Myles

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 02:34:22PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Patrick Georgi<patrick@georgi-clan.de> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 25.08.2009, 14:13 -0600 schrieb Myles Watson:
> >> How about this fix?
> > I thought about that, but it has the disadvantage that it spreads the
> > configuration of the board across two files.
> Yes.

Indeed, and I think we should avoid that. The small proposed patch
is perfectly fine, IMHO.

Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de>


> I'd like to think that much of the second file will disappear as
> CONFIG_USE_DCACHE_RAM and others are moved to their final resting
> places.  Then it might make sense to move the last few things like the
> mainboard strings into the mainboard/<vendor>/Kconfig file.

I doubt this will always work, there are many per-board options that
will still be required, and they should really be in the board dir, IMHO.


> > I'm not sure what the best fix is...
> 
> I guess the third option is live with it being printed twice.

Nah, why should we? The fix is easy.


Uwe.

> Nah, why should we? The fix is easy.

The point of Kconfig is that it is standard.  We had a custom config
tool already.

Thanks,
Myles

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:07:22AM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > Nah, why should we? The fix is easy.
> 
> The point of Kconfig is that it is standard.  We had a custom config
> tool already.

Sure, I agree, but this small fix doesn't significantly change the
tool's usage in any way. Besides we already have small changes
against upstream's kconfig to adapt it to our needs anyway.


Uwe.