From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:49:40 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] fix compilation problem for mpc8349itx CFG_RAMBOOT In-Reply-To: <20070524123653.1231835264E@atlas.denx.de> References: <20070524123653.1231835264E@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <465589E4.2020701@smiths-aerospace.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Nikita, > > in message <200705241210.19623@zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su> you wrote: >>> * all commands except foo, bar and baz >> #include "define_all_cmds.h" >> #undef CONFIG_CMD_FOO >> #undef CONFIG_CMD_BAR >> #undef CONFIG_CMD_BAZ >> >>> * all default commands plus foo, but without baz >> #include "define_default_cmds.h" >> #define CONFIG_CMD_FOO >> #undef CONFIG_CMD_BAZ >> >>> I guess then you will have to list up all commands you want to >>> include somewhere - either in the board onfig file or in another >>> header file. >> Sure - in separate headers files. I see no problems here. It scales. > > Good idea. Shall we go for that? > > Any other opinions, ACKs or NACKs? > > Best regards, > Wolfgang Denk Just to poke the sleeping lions, :-) we've discussed going to a linux kconfig "script" in the past and was not pursued for various reasons, most of which I've forgotten. It has some nice features * Help text * Conditional logic to guard against nonsensical configurations Should we reconsider it? I believe the above is compatible with kconfig, the missing part being piles and piles of configuration snippets that would have to be written. Anybody with more knowledge than me? (OK, that last was rhetorical. ;-) Best regards, gvb