[PATCH] build: target: improve UX of CONFIG_TARGET handling

Piotr Dymacz pepe2k at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 06:00:36 PDT 2022

Hi Petr,

On 29.03.2022 12:55, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Piotr Dymacz <pepe2k at gmail.com> [2022-03-29 10:10:00]:
> Hi,
>> It seems I've been misusing 'target' for a long time and now I'm trying to
>> understand how this leads to the same behavior as 'platform' :)
> comments right above that code states following:
>   # defaults to subtarget if subtarget exists and target does not
>   # defaults to target otherwise
>> Should we maybe make 'target' as a valid value?
> It's consumed by developers, so I wouldn't waste time and complicate the code
> with such band aids for wrong documentation, I would simply fix the
> documentation instead.

My suggestion was only about keeping things with reality. Even the 
comments above, in the code you mentioned, refer to 'target' and 
'subtarget', not 'platform'.

I might be simply wrong here but I believe most of us refer to 'target', 
not 'platform' these days. That was the reason for my idea about 
'{subtarget_}target', while keeping backward compatibility with the 
'platform' but I'm really fine keeping it this way and fixing Wiki.

btw, CONFIG_TARGET=platform|subtarget|env was introduced in2011, in 


More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list