Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kbuild: Add cc-option-raw macro

[Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>]

El Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:32:20AM +0200 Michal Marek ha dit:

> Dne 14.6.2017 v 09:31 Arnd Bergmann napsal(a):
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> > <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> >> 2017-06-14 8:08 GMT+09:00 Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>:
> >>> cc-option uses KBUILD_CFLAGS and KBUILD_CPPFLAGS when it determines
> >>> whether an option is supported or not. This is fine for options used to
> >>> build the kernel itself, however some components like the x86 boot code
> >>> use a different set of flags.
> >>>
> >>> Add the new macro cc-option-raw which serves the same purpose as
> >>> cc-option but has additional parameters. One parameter is the compiler
> >>> with which the check should be performed, the other the compiler options
> >>> to be used instead KBUILD_C*FLAGS. The compiler parameter allows other
> >>> macros like hostcc-option to be implemented on top of cc-option-raw.
> >>>
> >>> Also rework cc-option to make use of cc-option-raw.
> >>>
> >>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >>> Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes in v2:
> >>> - Changed macro name from Add cc-option-no-kbuild to cc-option-raw
> >>> - Added compiler as parameter to the macro
> >>> - Reworked cc-option to make use of cc-option-raw
> >>> - Updated commit message
> >>>
> >>>  scripts/Kbuild.include | 9 +++++++--
> >>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> >> (if nothing better pops up)
> > 
> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> Acked-by: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>
> 
> 
> > Regarding the naming, __cc-option might be better than cc-option-raw,
> > but the current version is fine too.
> 
> I have no strong opinion either way :).

I'm going to change it to __cc-option since there is a slight
preference for it and I have to respin the series anyway. I'll wait
a bit for feedback from the x86 folks before sending the new version.