Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 11:36 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> Convert Makefile -> Kbuild,
> to make off-kernel development easier and less intrusive.

No drivers/net directory uses Kbuild.

Why should this?

> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Kondratiev <qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/wil6210/Kbuild   | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/wil6210/Makefile | 18 ------------------

If you send renaming patches, please use
git format-patch -M

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Vladimir Kondratiev]

On Tuesday, April 08, 2014 09:14:51 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 11:36 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> > Convert Makefile -> Kbuild,
> > to make off-kernel development easier and less intrusive.
> 
> No drivers/net directory uses Kbuild.
> 
> Why should this?

because it makes it easier to do off-kernel development, and then
move things to the proper location within the kernel without
conflicting changes in the Makefile.
As I understand, Kbuild is better choice because it is really not
standalone "Makefile", it is intended to be included by the real
Makefile. Thus, distinct name is better.
Are there any reasons why not using Kbuild? I did not found
guidelines when use Kbuild and when not.

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Kondratiev <qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/wil6210/Kbuild   | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/wil6210/Makefile | 18 ------------------
> 
> If you send renaming patches, please use
> git format-patch -M

Sure I will. Thanks for mentioning this.

Thanks, Vladimir

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Joe Perches]

(adding Michal Marek)

On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 17:08 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 08, 2014 09:14:51 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 11:36 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> > > Convert Makefile -> Kbuild,
> > > to make off-kernel development easier and less intrusive.
> > No drivers/net directory uses Kbuild.
> > Why should this?
> 
> because it makes it easier to do off-kernel development, and then
> move things to the proper location within the kernel without
> conflicting changes in the Makefile.
> As I understand, Kbuild is better choice because it is really not
> standalone "Makefile", it is intended to be included by the real
> Makefile. Thus, distinct name is better.
> Are there any reasons why not using Kbuild? I did not found
> guidelines when use Kbuild and when not.

Michal?  Any opinion?

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Michal Marek]

On 2014-04-09 18:06, Joe Perches wrote:
> (adding Michal Marek)
> 
> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 17:08 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 08, 2014 09:14:51 AM Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 11:36 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
>>>> Convert Makefile -> Kbuild,
>>>> to make off-kernel development easier and less intrusive.
>>> No drivers/net directory uses Kbuild.
>>> Why should this?
>>
>> because it makes it easier to do off-kernel development, and then
>> move things to the proper location within the kernel without
>> conflicting changes in the Makefile.

You can create a GNUmakefile for this purpose, it takes precedence over
Makefile.


>> As I understand, Kbuild is better choice because it is really not
>> standalone "Makefile", it is intended to be included by the real
>> Makefile. Thus, distinct name is better.
>> Are there any reasons why not using Kbuild? I did not found
>> guidelines when use Kbuild and when not.

Kbuild is a slightly better choice because it better describes the
content, but I don't think its needed to rename existing Makefiles just
because of that. Kbuild is needed in the toplevel directory or in
arch/*/, where Makefile has a different special meaning. The out of tree
build use case can be solved by a GNUmakefile.

Michal

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Vladimir Kondratiev]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:22:47 AM Michal Marek wrote:
> On 2014-04-09 18:06, Joe Perches wrote:
> > (adding Michal Marek)
> > 
> > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 17:08 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 08, 2014 09:14:51 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 11:36 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> >>>> Convert Makefile -> Kbuild,
> >>>> to make off-kernel development easier and less intrusive.
> >>> No drivers/net directory uses Kbuild.
> >>> Why should this?
> >>
> >> because it makes it easier to do off-kernel development, and then
> >> move things to the proper location within the kernel without
> >> conflicting changes in the Makefile.
> 
> You can create a GNUmakefile for this purpose, it takes precedence over
> Makefile.
> 
> 
> >> As I understand, Kbuild is better choice because it is really not
> >> standalone "Makefile", it is intended to be included by the real
> >> Makefile. Thus, distinct name is better.
> >> Are there any reasons why not using Kbuild? I did not found
> >> guidelines when use Kbuild and when not.
> 
> Kbuild is a slightly better choice because it better describes the
> content, but I don't think its needed to rename existing Makefiles just
> because of that. Kbuild is needed in the toplevel directory or in
> arch/*/, where Makefile has a different special meaning. The out of tree
> build use case can be solved by a GNUmakefile.
> 

Originally, I followed the code found at
drivers/scsi/osd/
They have Kbuild for in-kernel use and Makefile for out-of-tree

But now I found, Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt says:
---cut---
The preferred name for the kbuild files are 'Makefile' but 'Kbuild' can
be used and if both a 'Makefile' and a 'Kbuild' file exists, then the 'Kbuild'
file will be used.
---cut---

Accordingly to this, would you say I should drop this patch and go with
GNUmakefile + Makefile for internal development? I am pretty neutral with
this, just need to know what is the proper way.

Thanks, Vladimir 

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Michal Marek]

On 2014-04-10 12:23, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:22:47 AM Michal Marek wrote:
>> Kbuild is a slightly better choice because it better describes the
>> content, but I don't think its needed to rename existing Makefiles just
>> because of that. Kbuild is needed in the toplevel directory or in
>> arch/*/, where Makefile has a different special meaning. The out of tree
>> build use case can be solved by a GNUmakefile.
>>
> 
> Originally, I followed the code found at
> drivers/scsi/osd/
> They have Kbuild for in-kernel use and Makefile for out-of-tree
> 
> But now I found, Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt says:
> ---cut---
> The preferred name for the kbuild files are 'Makefile' but 'Kbuild' can
> be used and if both a 'Makefile' and a 'Kbuild' file exists, then the 'Kbuild'
> file will be used.
> ---cut---
> 
> Accordingly to this, would you say I should drop this patch and go with
> GNUmakefile + Makefile for internal development? I am pretty neutral with
> this, just need to know what is the proper way.

It's up to you, since it's your driver :). But the trick with
GNUmakefile works with the driver as-is as well as any other driver, so
it might be easier just to use that.

Michal

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Vladimir Kondratiev]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 01:06:11 PM Michal Marek wrote:
> It's up to you, since it's your driver :).

Then, I like Kbuild + Makefile better. This makes it clear
kbuild file is not 'real' top-level makefile.
So, let's keep this patch as it is.

Thanks, Vladimir

Re: [PATCH 1/5] wil6210: Convert to Kbuild

[Johannes Berg]

On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 13:23 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:

> Accordingly to this, would you say I should drop this patch and go with
> GNUmakefile + Makefile for internal development? I am pretty neutral with
> this, just need to know what is the proper way.

Or you could just use the backports project for that :)

johannes