+Simon Hi Igor,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Stoppa, Igor <igor.sto...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 14 August 2015 at 15:15, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> These are Kconfig options. I am not sure what makes you think they are >> binary? > > Binary as commented out vs set to y I guess you mean boolean? Binary makes me think some image file .. > >>> That might be inferred from the doc, when it is said to set a certain >>> option. >>> So one might just try to set it to "y" >>> But it's not 100% obvious. >> >> Again, these are Kconfig stuff. You can easily add these options by >> looking at the existing options in the same config file, even without >> knowing Kconfig. > > But some Kconfig options are used as strings, so one could be set as: > > CONFIG_SOME_OPTION="something" > > and another could be unset as: > > CONFIG_SOME_OTHER_OPTION="" > > That's what I meant. OK, all of these are boolean. You can double check the Kconfig files. > > [...] > >> I believe the intention here is that we don't want to create too many >> board defconfig files with just one or two different option(s). With >> EFI payload, technically almost every x86 board we support can support >> building as the EFI payload. If we do that way, we may end up creating >> too many config variants to "pollute" the U-Boot source tree. The >> defconfig files (as indicated by its name) is only the default >> configuration for a board and one can adjust the file with whatever >> options he likes to add/remove. > > Yes, I understand. > > In the end it's a decision on the trade-off between having a terse > directory and file layout vs. giving 1st time users something that > works out of the box. > > As 1st time user I would obviously go for the latter :-) > If there is something that _is_ expected to work, it reduces the > problem space I have to debug when I experience a failure. > > -- Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
