On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]> wrote:
> > one more question about fragments which i'm fairly sure i know the > answer to, but will be embarrassed about if i'm wrong. > > if i want to set a kernel option in a fragment, i'm fairly certain i > need to *explicitly* set all options it depends on, correct? > otherwise, that option is left unselected. > Correct. > > is there any warning in a log file that mentions that happening? > > The kconfig audit will indicate that the value didn't make it into the final .config, and if the option has been tagged "hardware", then that warning is dumped to the screen for the developer to see. More audit information is available within the kernel build itself, and IIRC that is covered in the more detailed guides. Right now, it can't tell you what was missing .. but there's no a library that I can potentially use to get that information, and I've raised an enhancement bug for 2.2 to not only output why an option didn't make they final .config .. but why it was dropped. > rday > > p.s. oh, and i think someone mentioned this earlier ... what happens > if i explicitly set one option, then explicitly "not set" another > option that is "select"ed by that first option? who wins? > > Last through the gate. Ordering matters. But the "redefinition" of the value is logged in the audit output Bruce > ok, back to work ... > > -- > > ======================================================================== > Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA > http://crashcourse.ca > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday > LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday > ======================================================================== > > > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end"
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
