On 04.06.2022 21:56:23, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > I was thinking to order by CONFIG symbol and put the objects without an > > additional symbol first > > > > > By sorting the list, do literally mean to sort each line like this: > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += can-dev.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_CALC_BITTIMING) += calc_bittiming.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += skb.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += bittiming.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += dev.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += length.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_NETLINK) += netlink.o > > > can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_RX_OFFLOAD) += rx-offload.o > > > > ...which results in: > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += can-dev.o > > > > can-dev-y += skb.o > > I see. But this contradicts the idea to do > | obj-y += can-dev > as suggested in: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20220604112707.z4zjdjydqy5rkyfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Doh! That mail was totally wrong - I've send an updated version. > So, we have to choose between: > | obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += can-dev.o > | > | can-dev-y += skb.o > | > | can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_CALC_BITTIMING) += calc_bittiming.o > | (...) +1 > or: > > | obj-y += can-dev.o > | > | can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_CALC_BITTIMING) += calc_bittiming.o > | can-dev-$(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) += skb.o > | (...) > > I have a slight preference for the second, but again, wouldn't mind to > select the first one. I think if can-dev is added to "obj-y" it will be always complied into the kernel. It will not be a module, if CONFIG_CAN_DEV configured as a module (which results in $(CONFIG_CAN_DEV) evaluate to "m"). Sorry for the confusion! Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
