On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
I'd rather avoid adding another case where the kernel needs to
know what modules are being built, though, especially if the
result of changing the .config and building modules is a
mysterious runtime failure (due to a missing platform fixup)
rather than compile- or insertion-time.
I don't follow what you are getting at here. Is this something
more than #ifdef PHYLIB in the platform code?
If you just #ifdef PHYLIB, then things will break if the user does
this:
make config, GIANFAR=PHYLIB=n
make zImage
make config, GIANFAR=PHYLIB=m
make modules
And the cause of the failure will not be something that obviously
points to a build problem, such as unresolved symbols.
what you are suggesting will not break with my patch.
Yes, it will -- note the absence of a "make zImage" after the second
make config.
The second case will for PHYLIB=y w/the select.
And that will only make a difference if you rebuild the kernel
itself after enabling the module.
I see. However, I don't like the idea I have to build in the PHYLIB
if I don't need it at all. It seems like the type of breakage you are
talking about exists today all over the place. I dont like it anymore
than you do, but it seems to me the lesser of evils is to allow the
user the ability to config things as they want.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
