Re: [PATCH v2] early_printk: consolidate random copies of identical code

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:50:23 -0500 Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> wrote:

> This brings up a recurring question.  I was tempted to just go make
> CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK depend on CONFIG_PRINTK, but lately I've faced
> pushback when trying to "fix" things like seeing ARM OMAP USB options
> for an x86 build[1], and GOLDFISH virt drivers being offered even
> when the end user already said no to GOLDFISH[2].
> 
> Do we want to use dependencies to reflect the real world layout of
> platforms/systems, or do we want to go the minimal dependency
> approach, where we are building sparc specific drivers on mips just
> because we can?
> 
> I think the former is better from a user specific point of view, as
> the maze of Kconfig is better as a tree topology with branches that
> have clear dependencies that exclude them, versus it being a flat
> monolithic space where anything can select anything.
> 
> Arguments I've heard for the latter seem to be developer centric
> (i.e forcing wider build coverage on the population as a whole, etc)

For me personally, I really really want good compilation coverage.  It
drives me bats when I merge a patch but have to jump through a series
of hoops (such as not having the appropriate cross-compiler!) to be
able to build the thing.

otoh, offering useless stuff to non-kernel-developers has downsides
with no balancing benefit, and we really should optimise things for
our users because there are so many more of them than there are of us.

I wish we could do both :(   CONFIG_AKPM?