On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 05:17:08PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 09/15/2007 10:47 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:30:21AM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 09/15/2007 01:13 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
I have a single file foo.c that I want to generate two (ALSA) modules from, snd-foo2000.ko and snd-foo2001.ko, by compiling with either FOO2000 or FOO2001 defined.
I can do this, and ALSA does this a few times, by providing dummy foo2000.c and foo2001.c files, like:
=== foo2000.c #define FOO2000
#include "foo.c"
[ ... ]
The stub source file is usually considered a good way to do this.
Mmm. If I'll have to live with it, I can, but thought I'd ask if there was some nice build trickery available instead.
The usual trick is to create _three_ modules: Two with the foo2000 and foo2001 specific parts, and a third one with all code used by both. Or if foo2000 and foo2001 differ only in small details, create one snd-foo200x module supporting both at the same time.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, first would be massive overkill in this case and second somewhat annoying as one of the differences is support for different resources (IRQs) among the two versions, whereas I'm checking the validity of the passed in values at a time I do not know which version I'm looking at yet -- knowing that requires having talked to the hardware.
I'm not getting this point.
Consider both snd-foo2000 and snd-foo2001 are compiled statically into the kernel - somehow one of them must realize quite early that it's not responsible for the device.
And however this is done, it should similarly work in one module supporting both.
Can do, but for now it seems like the two seperate modules might be cleaner. Can keep things much more straighforward that way by just redefining a bunch of #defines.
I'll just do the split version first and if someone really wants me to, I'll merge them after all...
Rene
cu Adrian