Luis R. Rodriguez | 1c199f2 | 2015-10-07 16:16:33 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | # Cumulative Kconfig recursive issue |
| 2 | # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| 3 | # |
| 4 | # Test with: |
| 5 | # |
| 6 | # make KBUILD_KCONFIG=Documentation/kbuild/Kconfig.recursion-issue-02 allnoconfig |
| 7 | # |
| 8 | # The recursive limitations with Kconfig has some non intuitive implications on |
| 9 | # kconfig sematics which are documented here. One known practical implication |
| 10 | # of the recursive limitation is that drivers cannot negate features from other |
| 11 | # drivers if they share a common core requirement and use disjoint semantics to |
| 12 | # annotate those requirements, ie, some drivers use "depends on" while others |
| 13 | # use "select". For instance it means if a driver A and driver B share the same |
| 14 | # core requirement, and one uses "select" while the other uses "depends on" to |
| 15 | # annotate this, all features that driver A selects cannot now be negated by |
| 16 | # driver B. |
| 17 | # |
| 18 | # A perhaps not so obvious implication of this is that, if semantics on these |
| 19 | # core requirements are not carefully synced, as drivers evolve features |
| 20 | # they select or depend on end up becoming shared requirements which cannot be |
| 21 | # negated by other drivers. |
| 22 | # |
| 23 | # The example provided in Documentation/kbuild/Kconfig.recursion-issue-02 |
| 24 | # describes a simple driver core layout of example features a kernel might |
| 25 | # have. Let's assume we have some CORE functionality, then the kernel has a |
| 26 | # series of bells and whistles it desires to implement, its not so advanced so |
| 27 | # it only supports bells at this time: CORE_BELL_A and CORE_BELL_B. If |
| 28 | # CORE_BELL_A has some advanced feature CORE_BELL_A_ADVANCED which selects |
| 29 | # CORE_BELL_A then CORE_BELL_A ends up becoming a common BELL feature which |
| 30 | # other bells in the system cannot negate. The reason for this issue is |
| 31 | # due to the disjoint use of semantics on expressing each bell's relationship |
| 32 | # with CORE, one uses "depends on" while the other uses "select". Another |
| 33 | # more important reason is that kconfig does not check for dependencies listed |
| 34 | # under 'select' for a symbol, when such symbols are selected kconfig them |
| 35 | # as mandatory required symbols. For more details on the heavy handed nature |
| 36 | # of select refer to Documentation/kbuild/Kconfig.select-break |
| 37 | # |
| 38 | # To fix this the "depends on CORE" must be changed to "select CORE", or the |
| 39 | # "select CORE" must be changed to "depends on CORE". |
| 40 | # |
| 41 | # For an example real world scenario issue refer to the attempt to remove |
| 42 | # "select FW_LOADER" [0], in the end the simple alternative solution to this |
| 43 | # problem consisted on matching semantics with newly introduced features. |
| 44 | # |
| 45 | # [0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1432241149-8762-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com |
| 46 | |
| 47 | mainmenu "Simple example to demo cumulative kconfig recursive dependency implication" |
| 48 | |
| 49 | config CORE |
| 50 | tristate |
| 51 | |
| 52 | config CORE_BELL_A |
| 53 | tristate |
| 54 | depends on CORE |
| 55 | |
| 56 | config CORE_BELL_A_ADVANCED |
| 57 | tristate |
| 58 | select CORE_BELL_A |
| 59 | |
| 60 | config CORE_BELL_B |
| 61 | tristate |
| 62 | depends on !CORE_BELL_A |
| 63 | select CORE |