Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:54:53 -0700 | | From | Tom Rini <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] kbuild |
| |
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:41:36AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:40:29PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrew. Here follows a number of kbuild patches. > > > > > > The first replaces kbuild-specify-default-target-during-configuration.patch > > > > > > They have seen ligiht testing here, but on the other hand the do not touch > > > any critical part of kbuild. > > > > > > Patches: > > > > > > default kernel image: Specify default target at config > > > time rather then hardcode it. > > > Only enabled for i386 for now. > > > > While I'd guess this is better than the patch it's replacing, given that > > most i386 kernels are 'bzImage', what's wrong with the current logic > > that picks out what to do for the all target now? > > Compared to the original behaviour where the all: target picked the default > target for a given architecture, this patch adds the following: > > - One has to select the default kernel image only once > when configuring the kernel.
in the case where 'all' wasn't correct to start with. And i386 isn't the convincing case here.
> - There exist a possibility to add more than half a line of text > describing individual targets. All relevant information can be > specified in the help section in the Kconfig file
Honestly, I'm indifferent to this. This problem is equally, if not better solved by documenting in the board-specific help "and use 'make fooImage for foo firmware"
> - Other programs now have access to what kernel image has been built. > This is needed when creating kernel packages like rpm.
I suppose this can clean up some of the globbing that might otherwise be done, but I know for a fact that there's been kernel rpms before this :)
> Where I see this really pay off is for architectures like MIPS with > at least four different targets, depending on selected config. > When one has selected to build a certain kernel, including a specific > bootloader only the make command is needed. > No need to remember the 'make rom.bin' or whatever target.
This is where I see it blowing up, quite badly. As Russell noted, you're going to have a horrible, unmaintainable list of boards and firmware supported, or not, on each. Even on PPC32 where we really only have "needs vmlinux, raw", "needs vmlinux, for U-Boot" and "can use arch/ppc/boot/", it'll still get ugly noting which boards can use U-Boot, which can use arch/ppc/boot/ and which can use both.
> But this trigger the discussion how much should actually be > part of the kernel.
Yes, there's that another discussion, which at least I'm not talking about right now. What I, and I think Russell as well, are noting is that doing this is will make what we have in the kernel much uglier / less maintainable.
-- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |