From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:41:00 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] include/autoconf.mk issue
In-Reply-To: <1206027486.5488.25.camel@ld0161-tx32>
References: <20080320153230.3062524A8B@gemini.denx.de>
	<1206027486.5488.25.camel@ld0161-tx32>
Message-ID: <47E2939C.6090807@ge.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

Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 10:32, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
>> Um... that would fix this specific situation - but we might still run
>> into the same problem with the next attempt to convert  code  to  the
>> new config style.
> 
> Yeah, we just need to pick 'em off one-by-one... :-)
> 
>> For example, there might be code which might be compiled depending on
>> CONFIG_PREBOOT.
> 
> Ah, as I understand that one, I think it gets solved in
> a slightly different manner.  The kernel introduces a "HAS"
> variant that indicates if the feature is enabled and
> then uses something like CONFIG_HAS_PREBOOT to indicate
> and test for its presence.  The actual _value_ remains
> the CONFIG_PREBOOT symbol.
> 
> jdl

Hi Jon,

In a recent patch (picked up by Stefan but not in the current ToT)
   <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/38092>
I added a config CONFIG_FLASH_SHOW_PROGRESS which I used to provide a 
countdown value as well as configure code (*not* a .o file).  Based on 
my limited understanding and perusal of the linux Kconfig methodology, 
this looked like an acceptable thing.

Is this a violation of Good Design[tm], or is the "CONFIG_HAS_*" 
principle an additional rule that only applies if you have a separately 
compiled file, necessary so that the "COBJS-y +=" trick works?

Thanks for clarifying,
gvb