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

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 2/15/19 1:15 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. This way you can build/test at each step.