Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:10:24 -0400 | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22 (evm) | From | Arnaud Lacombe <> |
| |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote: > I think that you are going to need to do something like Arnaud suggested > and use "depends on TCG_TPM=y" instead of just "depends on TCG_TPM", > unless you can convince someone that this is a kconfig bug. > dammit... I guess there is...
If you consider the following Kconfig:
config MOD bool default y option modules
config EXPERIMENTAL bool default y
menuconfig A tristate "A" depends on EXPERIMENTAL
config B bool "B"
config B0 bool
config C tristate "C" depends on B
config C0 tristate
config D boolean "D" depends on A && B select C select C0
config E tristate "E"
config F tristate "F" select E
B (KEYS) allows to set C (TRUSTED_KEYS). Also, B (KEYS) and A (TCG_TPM) allows to set D (EVM), which will select (C). Now, menuconfig highlight the problem very well. Proceeding as following A=m, B=y, C=m, E=y, F=y, we ends up having:
<M> A ---> [*] B {M} C [*] D -*- E <*> F
which translate in the following config:
CONFIG_MOD=y CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y CONFIG_A=m CONFIG_B=y CONFIG_C=m CONFIG_C0=m CONFIG_D=y CONFIG_E=y CONFIG_F=y
I would have expected CONFIG_C and CONFIG_C0 to be 'y', just as 'E'. If you remove D's dependency on 'A', everything works as expected. So it would seem direct dependency state influence the state of reverse dependencies...
Will have a look...
- Arnaud
| |