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
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."
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?
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. :)
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
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
participants (4)
-
Anders Darander -
John Bougs -
john bougs
-
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu