On May 1, 2009, at 6:47 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 07:44:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> >>> Dear Kumar Gala, >>> >>> In message <93A8F58D-8C13-4F72-AFF3- >>> cf4fdf9a3...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote: >>>> >>>>> In my experience, I tend to search for board names first. >>>> >>>> So back to the root of my question, do we just have one really long >>>> list of board names? >>> >>> I'm not an expert for the capabilities of Kconfig, but one looong >>> list >>> with hundrets of entries clearly makes no sense. We obviously need >>> sum >>> grouping / structuring. >>> >>> IMHO there should be several options: >>> >>> - for those who look for a board name, we should support this, >>> probably wih an initial selection by the first letter (case >>> insensitive) of the board name. >>> >>> like this: => board name => M => MPC837XERDB >>> >>> - alternatively, it should be possible to restrict the choice by >>> selecting first processor architecture (ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, ...), >>> then CPU (family) name, then board names. >>> >>> like this: => Architecture => PPC => MPC83xx => MPC837XERDB >> >> Sam, >> >> We are looking at moving u-boot to use Kconfig and was wondering if >> you could possible tell us if its possible to represent the same >> Kconfig 'config' options via two different menu schemes. We have a >> list of boards that will be 'config' options. We'd like to have it >> in >> one 'menu' that is just a long list of boards. The other would be a >> smaller subset that you "filter" based on selecting an Arch & >> Subarch. >> >> is something like this possible? > > Hi Kumar. > > Was my input useable or just pure rubbish?
Its usable.. one question I had was if you ever gave thought to having a 'config' type that was only for internal dependencies and didn't show up in the resulting .config. - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
