Dear Jon,
in message 1083273421.24127.170.camel@baz.sps.mot.com you wrote:
At the risk of opening a hot topic (again), I would like to bring up the subject of using the Linux Kernel 2.5/2.6 kconfig configuration mechanism.
What exactly do you want to make configurable? And how? At the moment, configuration is done in a couple of places, like Makefiles, config.mk files included by Makefiles, {architecture,processor,board} dependend header and source files, and linker scripts.
Which of these are you going to address?
If we just take the include/config/<board>.h files, they contain a lot of user configurable stuff (CONFIG_??? options), BSP specific stuff (CFG_??? options), and private definitons added by the specific board maintainer.
Which of these are you going to address?
I know that this topic has been discussed in the past, and that there are some in favor and some opposed to the idea. I also know that it won't be a clean-n-easy transition if motion in that direction is started.
I think I have made myself clear what I think about this: i find the ide very interesting, but I can see no way how to implement it without making the code much harder to understand and to maintain. But I may be wrong. Please go on if you think you can provide patches that show how this can be done for all existing architectures, processors and boards, without negative impact. be
system as well. I understand that there are some on the list that "don't want to fix working code" as well. :-)
This is not the case. If there is an obvious improvement, it will be added. Of course there are different points of view: code maintainer, regular developer and board maintainer, occasional user, etc.
One thing should be clear: there are certain things that require a really intimate knowledge of the innards of the processor, and the code. You must not expect that any configuration tool could enable an uninformed user to - for example - port U-Boot to new hardware. THIS CANNOT BE DONE.
If there are others (Schurig? Schwebel?) that would like to see this sort of configuration mechanism, and would like to work on the side with me until we have something that is clearly demonstrable to others (Hi Wolfgang! :-)), please
I'd rather see that development happen in the public.
let me know. I think it will take a bit of effort to get to a point where a critical mass of infrastructure is in place before the benefits of the mechanism will be seen.
I am really curious to see what you have in mind.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk