Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:39:31 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] serdev: fix builds with CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS=m |
| |
Hello Johan,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:38:06AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:29:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:06:06AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 09:38:42AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > Commit 54edb425346a ("serdev: simplify Makefile") broke builds with > > > > serdev configured as module. I don't understand it completely yet, but > > > > it seems that > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS) += serdev/ > > > > > > > > in drivers/tty/Makefile with CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS=m doesn't result in > > > > code that is added using obj-y in drivers/tty/serdev/Makefile being > > > > compiled. So instead of dropping $(CONFIG_SERIAL_DEV_BUS) in serdev's > > > > Makefile, drop it in drivers/tty/Makefile. > > > > > > Why not simply revert the offending patch? There are some dependencies > > > here related to how the tty layer is built. If you're still not certain > > > on why things broke, I suggest just reverting for now. > > > > I see that it is not easy to define what obj-y should do in a Makefile > > that is included via obj-m. Now it is the other way round and that > > should be safe. This construct is used in several places, so I'd say the > > patch is fine unless you have more concrete concerns. > > No, and I don't have time to look into this right now. > > It's more about the general principle that a patch should do one thing;
IMHO it does one thing: It does what 54edb425346a intended to do in the right way.
But I don't feel strong here. If you prefer to revert, that's ok, too. Not sure I will find the motivation then, to reimplement the cleanup, though.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
| |