Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc/configs: Update defconfig with now user-visible CONFIG_FSL_IFC

From: Michael Ellerman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 18:14:07 +1000

Esben Haabendal <[email-masked]> writes:
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> On 28/05/2024 14:28, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>>> With CONFIG_FSL_IFC now being user-visible, and thus changed from a select
>>> to depends in CONFIG_MTD_NAND_FSL_IFC, the dependencies needs to be
>>> selected in config snippets.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config b/arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config
>>> index 524db76f47b7..8aff83217397 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config
>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ CONFIG_FS_ENET=y
>>>  CONFIG_FSL_CORENET_CF=y
>>>  CONFIG_FSL_DMA=y
>>>  CONFIG_FSL_HV_MANAGER=y
>>> +CONFIG_FSL_IFC=y
>>
>> Does not look like placed according to config order.
>
> Correct.
>
>> This is not alphabetically sorted, but as Kconfig creates it (make
>> savedefconfig).
>
> Are you sure about this?
>
> It looks very much alphabetically sorted, with only two "errors"
>
> $ diff -u 85xx-hw.config 85xx-hw.config.sorted 
> --- 85xx-hw.config      2024-05-28 15:05:44.665354428 +0200
> +++ 85xx-hw.config.sorted       2024-05-28 15:05:56.102019081 +0200
> @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@
>  CONFIG_DMADEVICES=y
>  CONFIG_E1000E=y
>  CONFIG_E1000=y
> -CONFIG_EDAC=y
>  CONFIG_EDAC_MPC85XX=y
> +CONFIG_EDAC=y
>  CONFIG_EEPROM_AT24=y
>  CONFIG_EEPROM_LEGACY=y
>  CONFIG_FB_FSL_DIU=y
> @@ -71,10 +71,10 @@
>  CONFIG_MTD_CMDLINE_PARTS=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_NAND_FSL_ELBC=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_NAND_FSL_IFC=y
> -CONFIG_MTD_RAW_NAND=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP_OF=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_PLATRAM=y
> +CONFIG_MTD_RAW_NAND=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR=y
>  CONFIG_NETDEVICES=y
>  CONFIG_NVRAM=y
>
> I don't think that this file has ever been Kconfig sorted since it was
> created back in ancient times.
>
> And as it is merged with other config snippets using merge_into_defconfig
> function. I have no idea how to use savedefconfig to maintain such a snippet.
> It would require doing the reverse of the merge_into_defconfig.

Right. This is a config fragment, not a full config, so it's not managed
with savedefconfig.

Alphabetical order is preferable when adding new symbols.

cheers