Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] config: disable CONFIG_RTE_SCHED_VECTOR for arm

[Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:59:45 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:

> 2015-11-30 14:27, Jan Viktorin:
> > I believe (and have already expressed this idea) that this is not a
> > problem of architecture ports but it is a problem of the build system.
> > Love me or hate me, in my opinion the build system is broken :). The
> > build system should be able to solve this.
> > 
> > I've created privately an integration of kconfig into DPDK, however, it
> > is far from being usable and I did not have time to make at least an
> > RFC patch. If there is an attitude in the community to include such
> > thing in the future versions, I'd like to make some more effort in this
> > area.  
> 
> If we were integrating kconfig, we should consider kconfig-frontends
> (http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/projects/kconfig-frontends).

True, this seems to be the easiest way. I've already used it
successfully.

> But I'm not sure it is the way to go. You are welcome to open the debate
> in a dedicated thread by explaining the benefits compared to a configuration
> script.

OK. I will consider this. Probably, after the community call... (Or
before?)

> I think most of the options could be automatically guessed given the target
> CPU, kernel, libc and compiler. It looks like a scripting task, not a
> manual configuration (as kconfig provides). But maybe we can mix kconfig
> and some automatic defaults.
> 

Well, scripting... If you have issues like "feature X" does not work
on "platform A" then you need to express this. If you try to script
such dependency, I am afraid you always end up with a system of the same
or equivalent complexity as the kconfig already has :). We'll see...

Regards
Jan

-- 
   Jan Viktorin                  E-mail: Viktorin@RehiveTech.com
   System Architect              Web:    www.RehiveTech.com
   RehiveTech
   Brno, Czech Republic