On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/usb/Makefile > >> +++ b/drivers/usb/Makefile > >> @@ -51,3 +51,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_USB_MUSB_HDRC) += musb/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_USB_RENESAS_USBHS) += renesas_usbhs/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_USB_OTG_UTILS) += otg/ > >> obj-$(CONFIG_USB_GADGET) += gadget/ > >> + > >> +obj-$(CONFIG_USB) += common.o > >> +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_GADGET) += common.o > > > > Will this cause problems? For example, what if CONFIG_USB is Y and > > CONFIG_USB_GADGET is M? > > Hmm, I haven't thought about that. > > > Also, it seems a little silly to have an entire kernel module devoted > > to a single, little function. > > Agreed. And again, I haven't thought about compiling as a module which > would result in a major overkill. > > > This is a symptom of the difficulty of > > sharing code between the host-side and gadget-side USB stacks. > > Agreed. > > I'm open to any suggestions on how this could be solved. > > Sticking the function to the header file as static inline seems > like bit... ”bloaty”. > > If this is not easily solvable, I'll probably just drop this patch > for now. You could do: obj-$(CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT) += common.o which would build that subroutine into the main kernel whenever either side of the USB stack is enabled. Alan Stern -- 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
