From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:38363 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752151AbdDIJmB (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Apr 2017 05:42:01 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id t189so18335890wmt.1 for ; Sun, 09 Apr 2017 02:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (se167-2-88-172-169-60.fbx.proxad.net. [88.172.169.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 94sm12904753wrp.34.2017.04.09.02.41.59 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Apr 2017 02:41:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Vincent Legoll Subject: [PATCH RFC] menuconfigification work Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:41:51 +0200 Message-Id: <20170409094152.22268-1-vincent.legoll@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org Hello, This is a RFC, for making some menus in Kconfig into menuconfigs, so that it is easier to disable a whole tree of options without even entering the menu. The rationale is that the people that build their own kernels may want to disable unused things. I tried with one of the easy ones (or so I think) PPS. Did I do it properly ? I had to change some "if PPS" into "depends", and even add one that was implicit before, to PPS_GENERATOR_PARPORT. Is this kind of work wanted ? Is this acceptable for mainline ? If yes, I intend to find other candidates and do proper patch submissions, with the relevant maintainers also included in the review. Please advise Thanks