Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/25] hw/arm: Express dependencies of the highbank machines with Kconfig

[Thomas Huth]

On 14/02/2019 21.35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/02/19 20:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 08:38, Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add Kconfig dependencies for the highbank machine (and the midway
>>> machine).
>>> This patch is slightly based on earlier work by Ákos Kovács (i.e.
>>> his "hw/arm/Kconfig: Add ARM Kconfig" patch).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak |  4 +---
>>>  hw/arm/Kconfig                  | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak 
>>> b/default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak
>>> index 3baafc4..59734ee 100644
>>> --- a/default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak
>>> +++ b/default-configs/arm-softmmu.mak
>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ CONFIG_ARM_V7M=y
>>>  CONFIG_PCI_DEVICES=y
>>>
>>>  CONFIG_EXYNOS4=y
>>> +CONFIG_HIGHBANK=y
>>>
>>>  CONFIG_VGA=y
>>>  CONFIG_NAND=y
>>> @@ -54,14 +55,12 @@ CONFIG_PL022=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL031=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL041=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL050=y
>>> -CONFIG_PL061=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL080=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL110=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL181=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL190=y
>>>  CONFIG_PL330=y
>>>  CONFIG_CADENCE=y
>>> -CONFIG_XGMAC=y
>>
>> Could you explain the logic for when CONFIG_*=y
>> lines get deleted from the arm-softmmu.mak?
>> In this patch PL061 has been deleted, but PL011,
>> PL022, PL031 have not, though all these devices are
>> used in both Highbank and in other not-yet-converted
>> machine types. What's the difference ?

My plan was indeed to remove the switches from the default-configs file
as soon as they are enabled in the Kconfig file. Looks like I missed
these here in this patch, sorry!

(but unless there are other reasons for respinning, I think it should
also be OK if the switches get removed in later patches instead)

> I think it's a mistake.  I'd not remove any CONFIG_*=y except in a final
> separate patch.

Really? In that case it's way harder to see which options from the
default-configs are really handled in the Kconfig files - and there's a
risk that some options would get removed that are not enabled in any of
the preceeding Kconfig patches. So I think it's better this way, bit by bit.

 Thomas