* out-of-tree configuration @ 2014-06-18 13:03 John Bougs 2014-06-18 13:46 ` Anders Darander 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: John Bougs @ 2014-06-18 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelnewbies I am working with a kernel module that has a few kconfig options associated with it. The makefile for the module as it is does not support out-of-tree builds. I am trying to change the the makefile to do out-of-tree builds. Most of this is pretty straight forward, however I can't seem to find any recomendations on to do local configurations for just the out of tree build. right now I use the code below, but I don't realy think it is a good solution because of the possible confilict between the local .config file and the kernel .config file. Any suggestions on how I should handle this? ifneq ($(KERNELRELEASE),) # kbuild part of makefile # Optionally, include config file to allow out of tree kernel modules build -include $(src)/.config # Core module obj-$(CONFIG_XXX) += xxx.o xxx-y += xxx-core.o xxx-sysfs.o # drivers obj-$(CONFIG_XXX_1) += xxx1.o obj-$(CONFIG_XXX_2) += xxx2.o else # normal makefile KDIR ?= /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build default: .config $(MAKE) -C $(KDIR) M=$$PWD modules .config: @echo need local .config exit 1 modules_install: $(MAKE) -C $(KDIR) M=$$PWD modules_install clean: rm -rf *.o *~ core .depend .*.cmd *.ko *.mod.c .tmp_versions \ modules.order Module.symvers endif ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* out-of-tree configuration 2014-06-18 13:03 out-of-tree configuration John Bougs @ 2014-06-18 13:46 ` Anders Darander 2014-06-18 14:02 ` john bougs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Anders Darander @ 2014-06-18 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelnewbies On 18 June 2014 15:03, John Bougs <bogusemail98230@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am working with a kernel module that has a few kconfig options associated > with it. The makefile for the module as it is does not support out-of-tree > builds. I am trying to change the the makefile to do out-of-tree builds. First, why do you want to build the module out-of-tree? For 3rd party modules I can understand that need, OTOH, in that case your question wouldn't have existed. Cheers, Anders -- Anders Darander EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* out-of-tree configuration 2014-06-18 13:46 ` Anders Darander @ 2014-06-18 14:02 ` john bougs 2014-06-18 14:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu 2014-06-18 14:30 ` Anders Darander 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: john bougs @ 2014-06-18 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelnewbies On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:47 AM, Anders Darander <anders.darander@gmail.com> wrote: On 18 June 2014 15:03, John Bougs <bogusemail98230@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am working with a kernel module that has a few kconfig options associated > with it. The makefile for the module as it is does not support out-of-tree > builds. I am trying to change the the makefile to do out-of-tree builds. First, why do you want to build the module out-of-tree? For 3rd party modules I can understand that need, OTOH, in that case your question wouldn't have existed. I am working with a third party module that I am building out of tree.? I trying this across multiple platforms.? I am placing the module code in our VCS... out of tree seems to be a cleaner, simpler, les complicated? solution to me. Without? trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140618/e810b8cd/attachment.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* out-of-tree configuration 2014-06-18 14:02 ` john bougs @ 2014-06-18 14:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu 2014-06-18 14:30 ` Anders Darander 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu @ 2014-06-18 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelnewbies On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:02:09 -0700, john bougs said: > Without? trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree? Why not have it build in-tree? That way you can throw it at Greg KH and get it in (at least) drivers/staging, at which point you no longer have to do ongoing maintenance to keep in sync with new kernel APIs - if anybody changes an API that you're using, it's their job to update your use of it. :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 848 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140618/3fd34c29/attachment.bin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* out-of-tree configuration 2014-06-18 14:02 ` john bougs 2014-06-18 14:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu @ 2014-06-18 14:30 ` Anders Darander 2014-06-18 15:13 ` john bougs 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Anders Darander @ 2014-06-18 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelnewbies On 18 Jun 2014 16:02, "john bougs" <bogusemail98230@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:47 AM, Anders Darander < anders.darander@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 18 June 2014 15:03, John Bougs <bogusemail98230@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I am working with a kernel module that has a few kconfig options associated > > with it. The makefile for the module as it is does not support out-of-tree > > builds. I am trying to change the the makefile to do out-of-tree builds. > > First, why do you want to build the module out-of-tree? > > For 3rd party modules I can understand that need, OTOH, in that case your > question wouldn't have existed. > > > I am working with a third party module that I am building out of tree. I trying this across multiple platforms. I am placing the module code in our VCS... out of tree seems to be a cleaner, simpler, les complicated solution to me. Well, from your first email, I got the impression that you tried to move an in-tree module out of the kernel tree. What 3rd party module is it that you're building, that is delivered to you in a state to only allow in-tree builds? That's a pretty uncommon situation. Are the config options you need to be set something that only this module knows about, or are they something the rest of the kernel knows about? > Without trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree? Well, there's nothing wrong to build a true 3rd party module out-of-tree. It might very well be your only choice due to a number of factors. Though, if you can get it upstreamed, you'll win in the long term. Cheers, Anders -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140618/e9185bc0/attachment.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* out-of-tree configuration 2014-06-18 14:30 ` Anders Darander @ 2014-06-18 15:13 ` john bougs 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: john bougs @ 2014-06-18 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelnewbies On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:31 AM, Anders Darander <anders.darander@gmail.com> wrote: ? Well, from your first email, I got the impression that you tried to move an in-tree module out of the kernel tree. What 3rd party module is it that you're building, that is delivered to you in a state to only allow in-tree builds? That's a pretty uncommon situation. Are the config options you need to be set something that only this module knows about, or are they something the rest of the kernel knows about? > Without? trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree? Well, there's nothing wrong to build a true 3rd party module out-of-tree. It might very well be your only choice due to a number of factors. Though, if you can get it upstreamed, you'll win in the long term. Cheers, Anders I'm playing with a module off of github -? fbtft.?? All the config is local to the module.? Thanks ? Well, from your first email, I got the impression that you tried to move an in-tree module out of the kernel tree. What 3rd party module is it that you're building, that is delivered to you in a state to only allow in-tree builds? That's a pretty uncommon situation. Are the config options you need to be set something that only this module knows about, or are they something the rest of the kernel knows about? > Without? trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree? Well, there's nothing wrong to build a true 3rd party module out-of-tree. It might very well be your only choice due to a number of factors. Though, if you can get it upstreamed, you'll win in the long term. Cheers, Anders -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140618/558b04ca/attachment-0001.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-18 15:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-06-18 13:03 out-of-tree configuration John Bougs 2014-06-18 13:46 ` Anders Darander 2014-06-18 14:02 ` john bougs 2014-06-18 14:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu 2014-06-18 14:30 ` Anders Darander 2014-06-18 15:13 ` john bougs
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.