Messages in this thread | | | From | Milton Miller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile | Date | Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:18:57 -0500 |
| |
[fix a missing comma in cc ]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:49:06 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > One question. Instead of: > > > > make tools/perf_install > > > > Couldnt we beat kbuild into submission to allow the much more > > obvious: > > > > make tools/perf install > > > > ? > It is more obvious if you look at it alone. > But when you look at it with the other commands then you suddenly > end up confused when you need to specify the command as a > separate target "tools/perf install - and when it is just > one target "tools/perf_install". > > > > > I don't think anyone would expect the *kernel* to be installed > > in such a circumstance - so it's only a question of making the > > Makefile understand it, right? > > Make will try to update the two targets "tools/perf" and "install" > in parallel. And it does not look easy to teach make that when you > specify the target "tools/*" then the install target should just > be ignored and passed down to the sub-make.
When I saw this concept, my thought was we should add a T= option, similar to M= option to build a single module. The T would take the path under tools/ . This would also be similar to how we add O= for output directory and M= for building "external" modules (and also similar to $(build)= for subdirectories).
> Anything that adds more complexity to the top-level Makefile should > be avoided if at all possible. It is un-maintainable as-is. > And the consistency issue is also important.
I think this could be a simple rule, if we find the variable on the command line we pass everything to the tools Makefile (after processing O= I guess).
I'll leave the implementation to someone else, I have more than enough on my plate right now.
milton
| |