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

From: Michal Marek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:22:47 +0200

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