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>
 <CAK7LNARpzPqt76vGeu6c14cHaf2=UU0o8H4HrM-NKQYc-19qjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y/twXr2IOM4Dua8J@bill-the-cat> <CAK7LNAQyDnDiL4iY31Z82aWi-e-eiTdOqdsf3qzQ8f9dJTYwJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPnjgZ2hcKnzzAyy4m44L1hQ_wYbCq-3ZX0g57bvVdYjyPPL_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ2hcKnzzAyy4m44L1hQ_wYbCq-3ZX0g57bvVdYjyPPL_g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:35:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQpyjAVVES8dggiqcZNep1C0xkMob7HsBP4eS1jkOQbig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Proposed language extension for multiple builds
To:     Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc:     Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>,
        U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>,
        lk <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Simon,

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:23=E2=80=AFAM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrot=
e:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 10:36, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrot=
e:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:44=E2=80=AFPM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:32:03PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:04=E2=80=AFPM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.=
org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Masahiro,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.o=
rg> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:38=E2=80=AFAM Simon Glass <sjg@chrom=
ium.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 fe=
w
> > > > > CONFIG options without an SPL prefix are used in SPL. We don't ha=
ve
> > > > > 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 thin=
k?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This complexity is absolutely unneeded for Linux.
> > > >
> > > > So, the answer is no.
> > >
> > > Well, I think Simon summarized himself a bit shorter here than he did=
 in
> > > the patch itself.  So, to what extent does the kernel want to conside=
r
> > > all of the other projects using the Kconfig language and their needs =
/
> > > use cases?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > In principle, only features that are useful for Linux.
>
> I'm disappointed in this attitude. It is the same thing that we saw
> from the DT bindings until recently.


Sorry, but this is the maintainer's job.
Saying no is one of the most important jobs as a maintainer.

I must avoid Kconfig getting Frankenstein mechanisms.


> >
> > Kconfig has small piece of code that is useful for other projects,
> > for example,
> >
> >     #ifndef CONFIG_
> >     #define CONFIG_ "CONFIG_"
> >     #endif
> >
> > which might be useful for Buildroot, but this is exceptionally small.
>
> How about refactoring patches that would make a possible
> implementation easier to maintain, like [1] ? Would they be
> acceptable?


Code refactoring is welcome, but [1] is not applicable.
U-Boot kconfig is synced with Linux 4.20, way behind the mainline Linux.


> >
> >
> > The multi-phase is too cluttered, and that is not what Linux wants to h=
ave.
>
> Clearly it is not useful to Linux, which only has one build.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230212231638.11342=
19-61-sjg@chromium.org/


--=20
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada