Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:30:21 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: Surprising Kconfig depends semantics |
| |
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 05:13:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Roman,
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > CONFIG_SERIO=m with CONFIG_KEYBOARD_ATKBD=y shouldn't be a valid > > combination. > > > > The correct solution is most likely a > > default y if INPUT=y && INPUT_KEYBOARD=y && SERIO=y > > default m if INPUT!=n && INPUT_KEYBOARD!=n && SERIO!=n > > This is probably the easiest solution: > > default INPUT_KEYBOARD && SERIO > > (INPUT_KEYBOARD already depends on INPUT)
I'll send a default INPUT && INPUT_KEYBOARD && SERIO patch (to address the things James said, in any cases it doesn't do any harm).
But it stays strange that a default can assign a value that isn't allowed by the depends, and you therefore have to write the depends twice in this case:
config KEYBOARD_ATKBD tristate "AT keyboard support" if EMBEDDED || !X86 default INPUT && INPUT_KEYBOARD && SERIO depends on INPUT && INPUT_KEYBOARD && SERIO
> > The semantics that in > > > > config FOO > > tristate > > default y if BAR > > > > FOO will be set to y if BAR=m is a bit surprising. > > Why?
On a first thought I'd have expected it to be equivalent to default y if BAR=y
> bye, Roman
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |