kconfig question

kconfig question

[Miles Bader]

I have the following two entries in my Kconfig file (arch/v850/Kconfig):

   config RTE_CB_MULTI
   	  bool
	  # RTE_CB_NB85E can either have multi ROM support or not, but
	  # other platforms (currently only RTE_CB_MA1) require it.
	  prompt "Multi monitor ROM support" if RTE_CB_NB85E
	  depends RTE_CB
	  default y

   config RTE_CB_MULTI_DBTRAP
   	  bool "Pass illegal insn trap / dbtrap to kernel"
	  depends RTE_CB_MULTI
	  default n

What I expec this to do is to only ask the first question (RTE_CB_MULTI)
if RTE_CB_NB85E is true and otherwise just assume true -- this part
seems to work correctly -- but to _always_ ask the second question
(RTE_CB_MULTI_DBTRAP) as long as its dependencies are true.

However, what happens in practice is that the second question is only
displayed if the first question is displayed (the resulting actual value
of RTE_CB_MULTI_DBTRAP is whatever value it had before I entered the
menuconfig).

So... is this a bug?  If not, is there some other way I can have a
question [a] depend on another question [b], where [b] is optional
(defaulting to y), but [a] is not?

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
Saa, shall we dance?  (from a dance-class advertisement)

Kconfig question

[Jan Beulich]

Is there (or have there been thoughts to add) a way to specify that
multiple entities can all simultaneously be configured as modules, but
at most one of them can be built in (with both possibilities of this
still allowing or disallowing all others to be modules)?

Thanks, Jan

kconfig question

[Kumar Gala]

Sam,

Is there a way to have a set of choices either be mutual exclusive or  
individually selectable depending on how some other Kconfig var is set?

- kumar

Re: kconfig question

[Sam Ravnborg]

Dunno, Roman?

	Sam

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 03:50:04PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Sam,
> 
> Is there a way to have a set of choices either be mutual exclusive or  
> individually selectable depending on how some other Kconfig var is set?
> 
> - kumar

Kconfig question

[ANDY KENNEDY]

Please CC me as I'm not on LKML.

Consider the following Kconfig snippet:

choice
	prompt "Partition 1"
	default STORAGE_P1_u_Boot

	config STORAGE_P1_u_Boot
		bool "u-Boot"
		depends on ! (STORAGE_P2_u_Boot||STORAGE_P3_u_Boot)
		help
		  RAW storage location of u-Boot.

	config STORAGE_P1_App
		bool "App"
		help
		  Filesystem where vmlinux, rfs, and application
		  reside.

endchoice

choice
	prompt "Partition 2"
	default STORAGE_P2_u_Boot

	config STORAGE_P2_u_Boot
		bool "u-Boot"
		depends on ! (STORAGE_P1_u_Boot||STORAGE_P3_u_Boot)
		help
		  RAW storage location of u-Boot.

	config STORAGE_P2_App
		bool "App"
		help
		  Filesystem where vmlinux, rfs, and application
		  reside.

endchoice

choice
	prompt "Partition 3"
	default STORAGE_P3_u_Boot

	config STORAGE_P3_u_Boot
		bool "u-Boot"
		depends on ! (STORAGE_P1_u_Boot||STORAGE_P2_u_Boot)
		help
		  RAW storage location of u-Boot.

	config STORAGE_P3_App
		bool "App"
		help
		  Filesystem where vmlinux, rfs, and application
		  reside.

endchoice

I am using Kconfig for configuring a full system (many App images, one
u-Boot, etc.  My Kconfig file is generated dynamically in the Make
system I have written.  My intent of the above is to restrict specific
choice options to be mutually exclusive -- I don't want there to be two
partitions named u-Boot in the storage.

I am using an older version (from 2.6.37-rc1) of Kconfig and am
reluctant (scared even) to update.

Kconfig complains about this bitterly.  Looking through the code, I see
that if there is a "circular dependency" we reject the entire choice
block (of all circular dependants) from the point of the infraction,
though we still display the entire block of text in the menus. (That is
to say that one cannot select even App from the above due to the
reported circular dependency of u-Boot.)

Is this by design, or is this something that no one thought about
needing/wanting during design/implementation?  Would there be a desire
for this change to be implemented into the tip of Kconfig?  Would I be
expected to make this change or someone that maybe knows the code a bit
better?

Thanks in advance for any help/advice you are willing to give,

Andy