On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:36:22PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:48:39PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > In summary: > > > > > > We don't want to have library code into their own drivers because, > > I am not sure to parse that correctly, could you elaborate ? > > u_*.c and composite.c are basically library code. We don't want to have > composite.ko and/or u_*.ko. > > > > well, you can only have one gadget driver at a time anyway. And we don't > > > want separate compilation due to having stuff out of init sections. > > > > > on that last point, are you implying that section mapping is not kept > > across the different linking steps ? > > could be. I don't remember all the details. That was back on 2.6.27 > times. I would need to really revisit all the details on the archives. > > What I remember is that Dave noted code shrunk when combining the source > files, even if he didn't mark all the other functions as "static". > > Greg, do you remember why you started this discussion when you first > introduced g_utils.ko ?? That was a while ago. I think I was having some build issues with the including of the .c files due to some driver core changes I was working on, so I tried to create that, but then ran into other issues with #defines causing different things to be build in odd ways and breaking the parallel build system. I really can't remember the specifics, sorry. If you can figure a way to clean this up, I would not object to that at all. Sorry I can't be of more help here. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
