From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Brian Waite <waite@skycomputers.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 07:05:57 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Configuration System
In-Reply-To: <20040430231932.204D4C109F@atlas.denx.de>
References: <20040430231932.204D4C109F@atlas.denx.de>
Message-ID: <200405030705.57724.waite@skycomputers.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 30 April 2004 07:19 pm, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > I definitely don't want to have to add 25 new  files  with  meta-  or
> > > config data just to get my job done.
> >
> > I don't think it will take that at all.  Maybe a couple 2 or 3?
>
> Ummm... is you add only 3 files, you will have at least  one  monster
> of  a  config  file  which  nobody  will  be  able  to understand nor
> maintain.
>
First, let me say I don't find the configurator that we are talking about all 
the helpful to my work, but I think I might have a solution that will reduce 
the maintainability. So what I was thinking about was using the maintainers 
file along with a configurator script in the tools directory. The 
configurator would be all the smarts. It would read the MAINTAINERS file,  
which has the bits in a well-defined structure, and generate the views with 
some type of filtering. So you could say "Show me all boards supporting CPU 
xyz" or "Show me all boards supported by CPU xyz". The obvioous final step of 
the configurator is "make <configuration>"

Here are the pros and cons I see to this:

PROS: 
* The only new files are specificaly for the configurator and only need be 
modified to fix the configurator.
* Only the people interested in the system need to know about it.
* Automatically updated with each supported board.
* Minimal added work for Wolfgang.
* It can be extracted from the tree and maintained on the side until Wolfgang 
has the time to review and appove it.
* No one other then the interested parties has to do anything other than add 
their board to the MAINTAINERS list to work in u-boot.
* It does not preclude the make <configuration> well known system.
* Many others I am sure :)

CONS:
* More files in the u-boot tree.
* The configurator itself becomes somewhat complex.
* Many others I am sure :)

Jon, Wolfgang what are your thoughts on a system like this? 

Thanks
Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAlieVmxLCz0u+Ko8RAtc2AJ9kwRymVMYLSTs09ENX7OZBBQOGuACfeRM9
IEsWwBilha9w46iUmnqrURw=
=7yQG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----