[coreboot] Re: RFC: Replacing IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XXX) with the shorter CONFIG(XXX)

[Hung-Te Lin]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:49 AM Julius Werner  wrote:
> > Will it be more explicit if we call it HAS_CONFIG(XXX) ? Or
>
> HAS_KCONFIG(XXX)
> > CONFIG(XXX) seems too generic to me that some drivers may wan to use it
>
> for wrapping a reference to config tables, like GPIO(XXX).
>
> Hmm... I would really like to keep it as short as possible, and that's
> another 4 chars. Also, I feel HAS_CONFIG may be a bit confusing (e.g.
> may sound more like whether the config is used at all in a particular
> board/SoC/arch, rather than whether it is enabled). I guess we could
> go with KCONFIG(XXX) if you prefer, but I kinda liked the symmetry
> between CONFIG_XXX and CONFIG(XXX).

CONFIG is better then KCONFIG in that case, thanks! :)