[U-Boot-Users] Configuration System

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jon,

in message <1083273421.24127.170.camel at 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

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
Our business is run on trust.  We trust you will pay in advance.