Re: RFC: Further kernel build process changes?

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 15-01-07 04:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 10:33 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 1/7/15, 5:22 AM, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-01-07 7:26 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> External module builds do work in this configuration *if* you pass in
>>>> the correct options e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> make -C work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-source
>>>> O=work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-build M=${S}
>>>>
>>>> I've put together a quick proof of concept of this below.

<snip>

>>>>    KERNEL_OBJECT_SUFFIX = ".ko"
>>>>
>>>>    # kernel modules are generally machine specific
>>>>    PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"
>>>>
>>>> +do_configure[depends] += "virtual/kernel:do_install"
>>
>>
>> I¹m not clear on the separation of do_shared_workdir and do_install now...
>
> See above, this probably needs to change.
>
> The patch was really a test to see how badly a build would explode with
> separate source and builddir and whether the kernel build system can
> cope with three separate locations (source, build objects, module). From
> that perspective it passed in that I could build oprofile, perf and some
> kernel modules. From here we need a step back and to go through and do
> it "properly".

Agreed. I've queued all the known patches, and have proven that my
builds work with this applied with minor adaptations.

I've got a first pass through with the consolidation and some other
scribbles notes. I'll generate a topic branch and send it out when
it looks reasonably sane (but not complete .. since we don't want to
sit on large private changes).

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>