(dropped Hung-Te off the list somehow...)
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:49 PM Julius Werner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sounds like a good plan. Please keep Documentation in sync: > > > Documentation/core/Kconfig.md seems to cover the implementation details. > > Uhh... where did you find that one? I don't see it in my tree anywhere... > > > Will it be more explicit if we call it HAS_CONFIG(XXX) ? Or HAS_KCONFIG(XXX) > > CONFIG(XXX) seems too generic to me that some drivers may wan to use it for > > wrapping a reference to config tables, like GPIO(XXX). > > Hmm... I would really like to keep it as short as possible, and that's > another 4 chars. Also, I feel HAS_CONFIG may be a bit confusing (e.g. > may sound more like whether the config is used at all in a particular > board/SoC/arch, rather than whether it is enabled). I guess we could > go with KCONFIG(XXX) if you prefer, but I kinda liked the symmetry > between CONFIG_XXX and CONFIG(XXX). > > I would say that the rules for the global namespace are first come, > first pick. There are currently no macros named CONFIG() in the tree, > and after this is introduced, nobody can add another one (since > kconfig.h is force-included in every file and would lead to a > duplicate definition). Of course normally we want to avoid names that > are too generic in the global namespace, but for something as > ubiquitous and useful as this I think we can make an exception > (because I doubt any other use case could have a better justification > for claiming this name). _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
