MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230219145453.1.Idaaf79c3e768b85750d5a7eb732052576c5e07e5@changeid>
 <CAPnjgZ0BxS3CHKzofGE1SbAZouhMakAU_KUmfpy_OmJTkzyhSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPnjgZ3xpoJ33fgSG589E+xoUk4-dVbhwadfo+sd=hxqF-z0Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK7LNAT=tmXdJahjdXBrj8ASmEDhdeeqbXfSdyXCzkJZgix+Hg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPnjgZ0r431WyRgZH=37_OQ_L9UgzYB+GmSk=a6g4UUe_5t0sw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ0r431WyRgZH=37_OQ_L9UgzYB+GmSk=a6g4UUe_5t0sw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 26 Feb 2023 23:32:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARpzPqt76vGeu6c14cHaf2=UU0o8H4HrM-NKQYc-19qjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Proposed language extension for multiple builds
To:     Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc:     U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>,
        lk <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:04=E2=80=AFPM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wro=
te:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrot=
e:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:38=E2=80=AFAM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > +Masahiro Yamada
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not know.
> > This seems a shorthand in Kconfig level.
> >
> >
> > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config SPL_' | wc
> >     540    1080   24872
> > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config TPL_' | wc
> >     163     326    7462
> >
> > If hundreds of duplications are not manageable,
> > go for it, but kconfig will be out-of-sync from the
> > upstream Kconfig.
>
> Yes that's right, it is a shorthand in Kconfig.
>
> The counts above understand the problem a little since quite a few
> CONFIG options without an SPL prefix are used in SPL. We don't have
> tools to estimate how many, and we sometimes add a new symbol to 'gain
> control' of a particular feature in a phase.
>
> My intent in sending this patch was to check whether this support for
> configuring multiple related builds (or something like it) could go
> upstream, which for Kconfig is Linux, I believe. What do you think?


This complexity is absolutely unneeded for Linux.

So, the answer is no.


--=20
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada