Re: Automatic Configuration of a Kernel

Ahmad Reza Cheraghi
2005-09-15T13:03:41Z

--- Emmanuel Fleury <fleury@cs.aau.dk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Roman Zippel wrote:
> >
> > The basic problem is that maintaining the bulk of
> autoconfig information
> > in a separate file is not feasible, it would be a
> nightmare to maintain.
> > This means it would be better to integrate this
> information into Kconfig
> > and define interface so that external
> program/scripts (preferably shell
> > instead of perl) can use that to configure the
> kernel.
> >
> > A simple example could look like this:
> >
> > config FOO
> > bool "foo"
> > def_auto y
>
> Why not directly having a direct reference to the
> name of the script ?
>
> config FOO
> bool "foo"
> auto "detect-foo-script"
>
> Where you have a specific directory in
> scripts/autoconfig/ where you
> store the scripts. Each script output y, n or m.
>
> But, it means a hell of scripts (except if we can
> pass arguments in the
> auto field: auto "detect-foo-script card-XYZ
> release-32-or-higher").

To pass argument it is not a problem we do it like we
passed the rules in the rules_list(see the function
exec_rule in auto_conf.c ). The lex parser has to be
expanded in that way that it gives everything written
after "auto" to the autoconfig.

config FOO
bool "foo"
auto "detect-foo-script"

So the new programm will work like that:

It goes through are the Kconfig as usual. For any
Option that doesn't have any "auto" a '\n' will be
given. If there is an "auto" it will execute the
script that is written after it. I think it might work
like that. Any suggestion??

> This scheme seems much simpler to me (and yet not
> restrictive at all).
> Of course, each script might have to ask few
> questions to the user as:
> Do you want this FOO support ? [y/m/n]:
>
> Or (when no module option):
> Do you want this FOO support ? [y/n]:

If the script want to ask some question, what will be
the difference if we write make config.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around