Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:31:18 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] riscv: add arch/riscv/Kbuild |
| |
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:42 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:04:53PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Kbuild support two file names, "Makefile" and "Kbuild" > > for describing obj-y, obj-m, etc. > > <snipping the basic explanation, which is documented pretty well, > I I think I full understand> > > > Similarly, arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile is very special > > in that it is included from the top-level Makefile, > > and specify arch-specific compiler flags etc. > > > > We can use arch/$(SRCARCH)/Kbuild > > to specify obj-y, obj-m. > > The top-level Makefile does not need to know > > the directory structure under arch/$(SRCARCH)/. > > > > This is logical separation. > > But only if we document this specific split and eventually stop allowing > to build objects from arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile.
I like this idea, but it would change the link order (i.e. probe order)
For example, I want move all drivers-y in arch/x86/Makefile to arch/x86/Kbuild.
I do not know how much we care about the probe order.
> And in my perfect world > we'd eventually phase out the magic arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile entireŀy. > In addition to the normal Kbuild file we'd then have say (names entirely > made up and probably not the best idea) > > arch/$(SRCARCH)/flags.mk to set the various compiler flags and co > arch/$(SRCARCH)/targets.mk for extra arch-specific targets
I am not sure whether this split is a good idea. What is the problem with having the single arch-Makefile?
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |