Dne 14.6.2017 v 09:31 Arnd Bergmann napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: >> 2017-06-14 8:08 GMT+09:00 Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org>: >>> cc-option uses KBUILD_CFLAGS and KBUILD_CPPFLAGS when it determines >>> whether an option is supported or not. This is fine for options used to >>> build the kernel itself, however some components like the x86 boot code >>> use a different set of flags. >>> >>> Add the new macro cc-option-raw which serves the same purpose as >>> cc-option but has additional parameters. One parameter is the compiler >>> with which the check should be performed, the other the compiler options >>> to be used instead KBUILD_C*FLAGS. The compiler parameter allows other >>> macros like hostcc-option to be implemented on top of cc-option-raw. >>> >>> Also rework cc-option to make use of cc-option-raw. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> >>> Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org> >>> --- >>> Changes in v2: >>> - Changed macro name from Add cc-option-no-kbuild to cc-option-raw >>> - Added compiler as parameter to the macro >>> - Reworked cc-option to make use of cc-option-raw >>> - Updated commit message >>> >>> scripts/Kbuild.include | 9 +++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Acked-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> >> (if nothing better pops up) > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
Acked-by: Michal Marek <mma...@suse.com> > Regarding the naming, __cc-option might be better than cc-option-raw, > but the current version is fine too. I have no strong opinion either way :). Michal
