Re: Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 - 3:00 am

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 05:35:40PM +0800, hacklu wrote:


It looks like the driver uses the old 2.4 way to define a Makefile.
This will not work with 2.6.

What you need to do is to define a Makefile (*) like you would
if the driver was included in the kernel and then build
it using the following command:

make -C path/to/kernel/ M=`pwd`

The kernel shall be built before you do this as the method uses
information from the buitl kernel.

(*) The Makefile may not refer to new CONFIG_ symbols.
So it likely looks like this:

obj-m := foo.o bar.o

Do not be suprised that the Makefile becomes much much simpler - this is expected.

	Sam
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
how about KBUILD_MODNAME, hacklu, (Tue Aug 3, 12:11 am)
Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Américo Wang, (Tue Aug 3, 1:36 am)
Re: Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, hacklu, (Tue Aug 3, 2:35 am)
Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Boaz Harrosh, (Tue Aug 3, 2:52 am)
Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Boaz Harrosh, (Tue Aug 3, 2:56 am)
Re: Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Sam Ravnborg, (Tue Aug 3, 3:00 am)
Re: Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Américo Wang, (Tue Aug 3, 3:12 am)
Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Américo Wang, (Tue Aug 3, 3:15 am)
Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Boaz Harrosh, (Tue Aug 3, 3:24 am)
Re: how about KBUILD_MODNAME, Sam Ravnborg, (Tue Aug 3, 4:02 am)