From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2] net: ks8851: Fix mixed module/builtin build
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:41:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <de224620-474d-0853-4ddc-a2f88f79fbcc@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6d74297-b29e-956e-5861-40cee359e892@denx.de>
On 16.01.2021 22:25, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/16/21 9:39 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 08:26:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 6:56 PM Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/21 6:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 5:48 PM Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't really like this version, as it does not actually solve the problem of
>>>>> linking the same object file into both vmlinux and a loadable module, which
>>>>> can have all kinds of side-effects besides that link failure you saw.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to avoid exporting all those symbols, a simpler hack would
>>>>> be to '#include "ks8851_common.c" from each of the two files, which
>>>>> then always duplicates the contents (even when both are built-in), but
>>>>> at least builds the file the correct way.
>>>>
>>>> That's the same as V1, isn't it ?
>>>
>>> Ah, I had not actually looked at the original submission, but yes, that
>>> was slightly better than v2, provided you make all symbols static to
>>> avoid the new link error.
>>>
>>> I still think that having three modules and exporting the symbols from
>>> the common part as Heiner Kallweit suggested would be the best
>>> way to do it.
>>
>> FWIW I'd prefer V1 (the #include approach) as it allows going back to
>> using static inlines for register access. That's what we had before
>> 7a552c850c45.
>>
>> It seems unlikely that a system uses both, the parallel *and* the SPI
>> variant of the ks8851. So the additional memory necessary because of
>> code duplication wouldn't matter in practice.
>
> I have a board with both options populated on my desk, sorry.
Making the common part a separate module shouldn't be that hard.
AFAICS it would just take:
- export 4 functions from common
- extend Kconfig
- extend Makefile
One similar configuration that comes to my mind and could be used as
template is SPI_FSL_LIB.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-16 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-16 16:48 [PATCH net-next V2] net: ks8851: Fix mixed module/builtin build Marek Vasut
2021-01-16 17:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-01-16 17:54 ` Marek Vasut
2021-01-16 19:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-01-16 20:39 ` Lukas Wunner
2021-01-16 21:25 ` Marek Vasut
2021-01-16 21:41 ` Heiner Kallweit [this message]
2021-01-17 10:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=de224620-474d-0853-4ddc-a2f88f79fbcc@gmail.com \
--to=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox