From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joey Oravec <joravec@drewtech.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:24:41 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Some questions about what is planned to
	improveU-Boot configuration...
References: <46597312D56D2A47A3A6E9C1D0D9B7AEB0C2C0@kpladc0001.konzeptpark.intra>
Message-ID: <f4rc2c$9pb$1@sea.gmane.org>
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

"Carsten Schlote" <c.schlote@konzeptpark.de> wrote in message 
news:46597312D56D2A47A3A6E9C1D0D9B7AEB0C2C0 at kpladc0001.konzeptpark.intra...
> as everyone knows, the current config system for U-Boot is simply PITA.
> I regexed all 'CONFIG_' defines from the latest sources, and I found
> more than 1300 unique defines. Not tested with 'CFG_' defines yet. Some
> defines use cannonical names, so you see what belongs together. For the
> rest you must dig in the sources.

Plus, it's very slow to compile and build archives for a billion modules 
that are be unrelated to your platform. I agree KConfig seems like an 
obvious choice and I'm willing to work with you in making these changes.

-joey