[kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:56:18PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Tom Rini [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Only sort-of. There are some cases where you can get away with that. Probably. eg If you ask for PARPORT, on x86 that means yes to PARPORT_PC, always (right?) Yes. So the right answer there isn't to use a derivation but to say: require X86 and PARPORT implies PARPORT_PC unless X86==n suppress PARPORT_PC which forces PARPORT_PC==y and makes the question invisible on X86 machines, but leaves the question visible on all others. Yes, but there are quite a lot of people who don't want parport/serial/whatever compiled into their kernels at all, eventhough they have an x86. Think low-memory systems or similar. /David _ _ // David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker// Dance across the winter sky // \ http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao// Full colour fire / ___ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
[kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED]: require X86 and PARPORT implies PARPORT_PC unless X86==n suppress PARPORT_PC which forces PARPORT_PC==y and makes the question invisible on X86 machines, but leaves the question visible on all others. Yes, but there are quite a lot of people who don't want parport/serial/whatever compiled into their kernels at all, eventhough they have an x86. Think low-memory systems or similar. That's OK. Neither of these constraints says PARPORT must be compiled in. Look at the conditionals carefully. -- a href=http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a ...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances. -- Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate, Libertarian Party ___ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
[kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There are also a lot of config options that are implied by your setup in an embedded enviromment but which you dont actually want because you didnt wire them Well, then, you don't specify the guard capability! If your MV147 isn't wired for serial, then leave SERIAL off. The point of the derivation is exactly to let you do that. -- a href=http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. -- Frederic Bastiat, The Law ___ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
[kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
Jamie Lokier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Which is unfortunately wrong if you want the parport subsystem on x86 but won't be using the parport_pc driver with it. I.e. you'll be using some other driver which isn't part of the kernel tree. Perhaps a modified version of parport_pc, perhaps something else. If you're integrating drivers that aren't in the kernel tree, you can and should patch the CML2 rulebase to compensate. So your patch for the modified driver should comment out the PARPORT_PC==PARPORT requirement. Problem solved. More generally, arguments of the form Non-mainline custom hack X could invalidate constraint Y, therefore we can't have Y in the rulebase are dangerous -- I suspect you could reduce your set of constraints to nil very quickly that way, and thus badly screw over the 99% of people who just want to build a more or less stock kernel. -- a href=http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a The abortion rights and gun control debates are twin aspects of a deeper question --- does an individual ever have the right to make decisions that are literally life-or-death? And if not the individual, who does? ___ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
[kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
Eric S. Raymond wrote: More generally, arguments of the form Non-mainline custom hack X could invalidate constraint Y, therefore we can't have Y in the rulebase are dangerous -- I suspect you could reduce your set of constraints to nil very quickly that way, and thus badly screw over the 99% of people who just want to build a more or less stock kernel. Eric, Still being able to use the tool is useful! So I want a don't mess with me mode where I'd get more control than 99% of the lusers Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. ___ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
[kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:31:40PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Tom Rini [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [snip] Exactly. In fact we can be more specific -- the Macintoshes in question are the old-fashioned NuBus-based 68k toaster boxes, not the more recent designs with a PCI bus. Relevant stuff in the Configure.help implies that MAC_SCC and MAC_SCSI enable support for the on-board hardware built into those puppies. But Alan's point is a good one. There are _lots_ of cases you can't get away with things like this, unless you get very fine grained. In fact, it would be much eaiser to do this seperately from the kernel. Ie another, possibly/probably _not_ inkernel config tool which asks what machine you have, picks lots of sane defaults and setups a kernel config for you. This is _sort of_ what PPC does right now with the large number of 'default configs' (arch/ppc/configs). You're really talking about a different issue here, autoconfiguration rather than static dependencies. Giacomo Catenazzi is working on that. Only sort-of. There are some cases where you can get away with that. Probably. eg If you ask for PARPORT, on x86 that means yes to PARPORT_PC, always (right?) On other arches (someone brought this up before) it could be PC, it could be something else. My point is there are only some cases where you can get away with asking for serial and knowing the driver. I've given this some thought before, and at least on PPC, you can at best segment off some drivers as depending on family X, but family X doesn't mean you have part Y. The other thing to keep in mind is I'm sure there's lots of unintentionally correct bits. In short, please be very careful when you change a symbol from a question to a derive. You're bound to piss off someone :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ___ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
