Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Proposed language extension for multiple builds

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 12:23:00PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Masahiro,
> 
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 10:36, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:44 PM Tom Rini <trini@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:32:03PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:04 PM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Masahiro,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +Masahiro Yamada
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not know.
> > > > > > This seems a shorthand in Kconfig level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config SPL_' | wc
> > > > > >     540    1080   24872
> > > > > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config TPL_' | wc
> > > > > >     163     326    7462
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If hundreds of duplications are not manageable,
> > > > > > go for it, but kconfig will be out-of-sync from the
> > > > > > upstream Kconfig.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes that's right, it is a shorthand in Kconfig.
> > > > >
> > > > > The counts above understand the problem a little since quite a few
> > > > > CONFIG options without an SPL prefix are used in SPL. We don't have
> > > > > tools to estimate how many, and we sometimes add a new symbol to 'gain
> > > > > control' of a particular feature in a phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > My intent in sending this patch was to check whether this support for
> > > > > configuring multiple related builds (or something like it) could go
> > > > > upstream, which for Kconfig is Linux, I believe. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This complexity is absolutely unneeded for Linux.
> > > >
> > > > So, the answer is no.
> > >
> > > Well, I think Simon summarized himself a bit shorter here than he did in
> > > the patch itself.  So, to what extent does the kernel want to consider
> > > all of the other projects using the Kconfig language and their needs /
> > > use cases?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > In principle, only features that are useful for Linux.
> 
> I'm disappointed in this attitude. It is the same thing that we saw
> from the DT bindings until recently.
> 
> >
> > Kconfig has small piece of code that is useful for other projects,
> > for example,
> >
> >     #ifndef CONFIG_
> >     #define CONFIG_ "CONFIG_"
> >     #endif
> >
> > which might be useful for Buildroot, but this is exceptionally small.
> 
> How about refactoring patches that would make a possible
> implementation easier to maintain, like [1] ? Would they be
> acceptable?
> 
> >
> >
> > The multi-phase is too cluttered, and that is not what Linux wants to have.
> 
> Clearly it is not useful to Linux, which only has one build.

I'm honestly not sure about this part. I keep pondering if some of the
module related options wouldn't be just as logical under a phases type
thing. But it would also probably be more forcing a solution at a
good-enough concept than finding a solution to a problem.

-- 
Tom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature