From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:53:20 -0600
Message-ID: <50DE3F00.70800@lwfinger.net>
References: <50DE1A74.4040607@lwfinger.net> <3226192.H2BxHSuKio@vostro.rjw.lan> <50DE2F32.1010207@lwfinger.net> <20121229003341.GA30982@balto.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
         :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Rq5Y3Jhe5bxUwi0LFwU32TpUOcnfU3eJAVnZHpYzUiQ=;
        b=xRYk5AYWaftPdXaWcve9z92G3MpvgSTdc0a/BhGfyXzqAFkcZz+mlGPQWNdn00a15b
         vvscHhIOeKfp8HQ4KgnA9sC52sZwVSB/slEcfJiwGj8QC99FzkNKGrdgvA0gwcTAwkZ0
         kMHS3Sd0hFREwlGaSqWtkPNHtFjrRJGp+YPJPg0W/+GM4bIoeQKlzsuk5lWR69f/quBv
         Lml0UA12p+OFANdcWENlktrVV5Y6RNVc9PHh/4uvpjOrHM44m4fwIScq2Lvg4vRAK6SK
         ru1x4uiqJt75OHZCH/djidgy3zGR+c2aE5pSukxhmC49EVsLQbv6bkRFpjZ8JW5hIFYq
         wVrg==
In-Reply-To: <20121229003341.GA30982@balto.lan>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

On 12/28/2012 06:33 PM, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 05:45:54PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> I wonder if that's avoidable?  The intention is not to create an additional
>>> module, clearly.
>>
>> It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to
>> understand why it is forcing a new module. Perhaps some expert knows
>> what Kconfig or Makefile magic will prevent that.
>
> kbuild is building an additional module just because the makefile is
> adding the new objects in the obj-m list directly, as in:
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND)     += cpufreq_ondemand.o cpufreq_governor.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE) += cpufreq_conservative.o cpufreq_governor.o
>
> To build just two modules the Makefile would have to be modified [1]
> into something into something like:
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND)     += cpufreq_ondemand_mod.o
> cpufreq_ondemand_mod-y                  := cpufreq_ondemand.o cpufreq_governor.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE) += cpufreq_conservative_mod.o
> cpufreq_conservative_mod-y              := cpufreq_conservative.o cpufreq_governor.o
>
> so that only two .o are added to obj-m, but that's not correct either as
> you end up with cpufreq_governor symbols exported twice.
>
> I think the only way would be to force cpufreq_governor as builtin with
> an automatic Kconfig option.
>
> Fabio
>
> 1. http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.7.1/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt#L191

Fabio,

Thanks for the explanation. Now I think I know how to do it.

V3 follows.

Larry