Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-05 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:53:14AM -0800, FN wrote: > | > I am unhappy with the direction the 2.6 kernel builds have taken. > | > Very much like Micro$loth DDKs we (linux users) are being forced to > | > build modules by plugging into a framework that doesn't respect the > fine > | > aspects of dep

RE: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-05 Thread Stuart MacDonald
From: On Behalf Of FN > Currently I face the following situation -- I try to build 2 drivers > from the same Makefile > --- > CWD := $(shell pwd) > obj-m := driver1.o driver2.o > driver1-y := d1/d2/d3/f1.o d1/d2/f2.o > driver2-y := d1/d5/file1.o d1/d6/file2.o CFLAGS_f1.o := -DMASK=0x123 CFL

Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-05 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:53:14 -0800 FN wrote: > That's not for you to decide. > Just pass down all variables that may be relevant to my module builds > and let me take it from there, for example > chdir $(M) > $(MYMAKE) CC="..." LD="..." AR="..." CFLAGS="..." MODFLAGS="..." > INCL="..." >

Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-05 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Mar 5 2007 05:53, FN wrote: > >| > I am unhappy with the direction the 2.6 kernel builds have taken. >| > Very much like Micro$loth DDKs we (linux users) are being forced to >| > build modules by plugging into a framework that doesn't respect the >fine >| > aspects of dependency generation and

Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-05 Thread FN
| > I am unhappy with the direction the 2.6 kernel builds have taken. | > Very much like Micro$loth DDKs we (linux users) are being forced to | > build modules by plugging into a framework that doesn't respect the fine | > aspects of dependency generation and analysis. | | Ideas in form of patches

Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-04 Thread Oleg Verych
> From: "FN" > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel > Subject: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough > Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:14:22 -0800 > Hello list, Hallo. > I am unhappy with the direction the 2.6 kernel builds have taken. > Very much like Micro$loth DDKs we (linux users

Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-02 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:14:22AM -0800, FN wrote: > Hello list, > > I am unhappy with the direction the 2.6 kernel builds have taken. > Very much like Micro$loth DDKs we (linux users) are being forced to > build > modules by plugging into a framework that doesn't respect the fine > aspects > of

Re: module builds need improvement / top Makefile not good enough

2007-03-02 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
FN wrote: >a) version rollback that causes timestamp rollback Ugh. Broken. > it's better to be able to do > gnumake -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build M=`pwd` MYMAKE=mymake modules > Patches accepted. J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the b