Re: CONFIG_TINY

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 07:43:48PM +0100, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > Matt Porter <porter@cox.net> wrote:
> > >Thank you.  This is exactly why in the last CONFIG_TINY thread I made
> > >it clear that a one-size-fits-all option is not all that helpful for
> > >serious embedded systems designers.
> > >
> > >Collecting these parameters in a single tweaks.h file and perhaps using
> > >things like CONFIG_TINY, CONFIG_DESKTOP, CONFIG_FOO as profile selectors
> > 
> > In an ideal world there would be several options invidually 
> > selectable.
> 
> But there is? Please look at 2.5.44-config. Or did I misunderstand
> you. Anyways, this work is far from the point where how this is
> selected is a major concern. 

There currently isn't a CONFIG_TINY / CONFIG_DESKTOP / CONFIG_FOO.  The
idea is that all of these changes you're working on to make a smaller
kernel shouldn't all be under CONFIG_TINY, but which ones are on / off
are read from some sort of template and there's a default 'tiny'
template, 'desktop' 'foo', etc template which has some on and some off.

And this is a major concern since many of us who would have to deal with
this when it enters the kernel want it to done in a flexible manner
initially, not later on.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/