[U-Boot] [RFC] How to move lots of CONFIGs from header files to Kconfig

[Nikita Kiryanov]

Hi Masahiro,

On 27/10/14 19:13, Masahiro YAMADA wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've been thinking how to move so many CONFIGs to Kconfig.
>
> First, I want to move many boolean macros such as CONFIG_CMD_*,
> because it seems easier than string, int, hex configs.
>
> Roughly, we have two options, I think.
>
>
>
> [1] I do this work for all the boards
>
>      I will prepare many entries in Kconfigs and
>      also move lots of configs options by a tool.
>
>   Pros:
>      - Possible to move many options at one time
>
>   Cons:
>      - Cause lots of conflicts
>      - It is pointless to touch lots of unmaintained boards
>        that might be removed by the end of this year
>      - Hard work for me
>
> [2] Each board maintainer takes care of boards he is responsible for.
>
>      Procedure:
>
>      1.  I will create many entries in Kconfigs
>          without dependencies ("depends on" and "select")
>
>      2.  Each board maintainer will move config options
>          from his board headers to defconfigs  (*)
>          (I expect most of active boards will be switched at this step.)
>
>      3.  Many of unmaintained boards ( = not converted to generic board)
>          will be removed by the end of this year.
>
>      4.  I will forcibly convert left-over boards.
>          These boards are almost inactive, so this conversion
>          will not produce much conflicts.
>
>       5.  Implement "depends on" and "select" correctly
>
>         (*)  You can edit  directly configs/foo_defconfig.
>         Or you can use Kconfig functions in case you may introduce a typo.
>
>          Run "make foo_defconfig"
>          Run "make menuconfig"
>          Enable config options you like
>          Select "Save".
>          Run  "make savedefconfig"
>          Run  "mv defconfig configs/foo_defconfig"
>          Remove unnecessay CONFIGs from your board header files
>
>
>    Pros:
>       - Reduce the possibility of significant conflicts
>       - Avoid needless efforts for unmaintained boards
>
>    Cons:
>       - Patch for each board will fly around
>       - Take longer time
>
>
> At first, I was planning to do [1] but it would disturb the
> development on SoC subsystems.
> I see SUNXI custodians are touching their Kconfigs and defconfigs very often.
> [1] would cause conflicts between u-boot/master and u-boot-sunxi/{master,next}.
> I also many boards are being dropped these days, which increase the conflicts.
>
>
>
> I am thinking [2] is better.
> Comments are welcome.
>

I recently tried to do [1] for a bunch of SPL #defines, and the attempt
ended in me git stashing the whole thing and putting it off for a later
date. The amount of work this approach requires feels very prohibitive,
and I agree that it is likely to be disruptive, so I'm in favour of
[2] as well.

-- 
Regards,
Nikita Kiryanov