Sam Ravnborg wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
>> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:41 +0100
>>
>>> So we could do:
>>>
>>> config foo
>>> 	tristate "do you want foo?"
>>> 	depends on USB && BAR
>>> 	module
>>> 	  obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) += foo.o
>>> 	  foo-y := file1.o file2.o
>>> 	help
>>> 	  foo will allow you to explode your PC
>>  ...
>>> Does this fit what you had in mind?
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> Now I'll ask if you think embedding this information in one of the C
>> files for a module would be even nicer?
> I have no good idea for the syntax and I and not sure what is gained
> by reducing a driver with one file.
> Agreed - simple drivers would then be a single file - and thats a good argument.

I like the Sam proposal, but maybe we can simplify the rules on
"module" segment: some informations are often redundant, dependencies
are sometime calculated by config part and sometime by Makefile
(and sometime in the Makefile there are some wrong hacks).
I would really like a good section like:

module
    foo : file1.o file2.o

and let the complex rules in the normal Makefile
(which is also good because the complex rules are often not
specific to a single driver).

But I don't like merging all info in a single file:
- not so clean in case of multiple source-file driver
- it would be more complex the "copy and paste"
   from other drivers: most developers are not
   comfortable with Kconfig and Makefile, so easy to grep
   others Kconfig/Makefile could help developers not do
   do strange/wrong hacks.

ciao
	cate

--
unsubscribe notice
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/