On 04.06.2022 21:56:23, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > I was thinking to order by CONFIG symbol and put the objects without an
> > additional symbol first
> >
> > > By sorting the list, do literally mean to sort each line like this:
> > >
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += can-dev.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_CALC_BITTIMING) += calc_bittiming.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += skb.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += bittiming.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += dev.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += length.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += netlink.o
> > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_RX_OFFLOAD) += rx-offload.o
> >
> > ...which results in:
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += can-dev.o
> >
> > can-dev-y += skb.o
> 
> I see. But this contradicts the idea to do
> | obj-y += can-dev
> as suggested in:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20220604112707.z4zjdjydqy5rkyfe@pengutronix.de/

Doh! That mail was totally wrong - I've send an updated version.

> So, we have to choose between:
> | obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += can-dev.o
> |
> | can-dev-y += skb.o
> |
> | can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_CALC_BITTIMING) += calc_bittiming.o
> | (...)

+1

> or:
> 
> | obj-y += can-dev.o
> |
> | can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_CALC_BITTIMING) += calc_bittiming.o
> | can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += skb.o
> | (...)
> 
> I have a slight preference for the second, but again, wouldn't mind to
> select the first one.

I think if can-dev is added to "obj-y" it will be always complied into
the kernel. It will not be a module, if CONFIG_CAN_DEV configured as a
module (which results in $(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) evaluate to "m").

Sorry for the confusion!

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |