Re: Penelope builds a kernel

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:07:58AM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:39:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> > Wrong.  She needs to compile a new module for her kernel.  What might be
> > useful is some automagic tool that will find the vendor-provided kernel
> > source tree and config (which is usually /boot/config-`uname -r`, but
> > still findable anyhow)
> 
> autoconf code already exists for this, it's a non-problem.

Er, why on earth is it 'autoconf' tho?  This isn't something that's
necessaryily a CONFIG_xxx issue, it's a 'compile this for me' issue.

> Note they must use
> the config in the header file of the vendor-provided kernel source tree, not
> /boot/config-`uname -r`

And why wouldn't the two match?  If you're running a vendor-provided
kernel, /boot/config-`uname -r` should be the config for the
vendor-provided kernel (and its source tree)...

> There are two cases:
> 
> 1) the vendor source tree is installed and set up with the right config -> use header file
> 
> 2) it's installed and the config has changed. -> use header file

2) should never happen.  I'm not talking about a patch (like said what
i2c does traditionally), I'm talking about driver.[ch].

> I don't see a point in ever looking at /boot/config-`uname -r` instead of
> the source tree, given that we must compile against a tree configured like the
> eventual running kernel anyway.

Because they should be the same thing?  And why do you mention 'eventual
running kernel'.  There is a running kernel.  Compile the module, load
the module, work.  No reboot (or kernel recompile) needed.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/