Re: Can ARM use drivers/Kconfig [Was: Kconfig: Source "drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig" for ARCH=arm]

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:31:24PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:20:00PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:42:52PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > 
> > > From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
> > > 
> > > Source "drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig" for ARCH=arm.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Cc: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
> > > Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > --- 23.a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > +++ 23.b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > @@ -1049,6 +1049,8 @@ source "drivers/hid/Kconfig"
> > >  
> > >  source "drivers/usb/Kconfig"
> > >  
> > > +source "drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig"
> > > +
> > >  source "drivers/mmc/Kconfig"
> > >  
> > >  source "drivers/rtc/Kconfig"
> > 
> > What is preventing ARM from using drivers/Kconfig?
> > That a better fix IMO.
> 
> Not everything in drivers/ is suitable for every ARM configuration.  It
> was felt at the time better for ARM to remain separate because people
> didn't want to pollute drivers/Kconfig with the ARM specific conditionals.
> 
Today we would have used HAVE_ for the problematic parts and thus
it would have been easy to not select what ARM does not support.
But unfortunately thats not how it got designed.


It would be nice to revist one day to see how much is actually needed
to cleanly supprt ARM in drivers/Kconfig.

	Sam