<p dir="ltr"><br>
On 18 Jun 2014 16:02, "john bougs" <<a href="mailto:bogusemail98230@yahoo.com">bogusemail98230@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:47 AM, Anders Darander <<a href="mailto:anders.darander@gmail.com">anders.darander@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 18 June 2014 15:03, John Bougs <<a href="mailto:bogusemail98230@yahoo.com">bogusemail98230@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > I am working with a kernel module that has a few kconfig options associated<br>
> > with it. The makefile for the module as it is does not support out-of-tree<br>
> > builds. I am trying to change the the makefile to do out-of-tree builds.<br>
><br>
> First, why do you want to build the module out-of-tree?<br>
><br>
> For 3rd party modules I can understand that need, OTOH, in that case your<br>
> question wouldn't have existed.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Well, from your first email, I got the impression that you tried to move an in-tree module out of the kernel tree. </p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">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? </p>
<p dir="ltr">> Without trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree?</p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Though, if you can get it upstreamed, you'll win in the long term. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers, <br>
Anders </p>