[PATCH] riscv: move the (z)install rules to arch/riscv/Makefile

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 2:00 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:21:47 PDT (-0700), masahiroy at kernel.org wrote:
> > Currently, the (z)install targets in arch/riscv/Makefile descend into
> > arch/riscv/boot/Makefile to invoke the shell script, but there is no
> > good reason to do so.
> >
> > arch/riscv/Makefile can run the shell script directly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy at kernel.org>
> > ---
> >
> >  arch/riscv/Makefile      | 7 +++++--
> >  arch/riscv/boot/Makefile | 8 --------
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Makefile b/arch/riscv/Makefile
> > index bc74afdbf31e..3c437fb09a07 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/Makefile
> > @@ -126,8 +126,11 @@ $(BOOT_TARGETS): vmlinux
> >  Image.%: Image
> >       $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(boot) $(boot)/$@
> >
> > -zinstall install:
> > -     $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(boot) $@
> > +install: install-image = Image
> > +zinstall: install-image = Image.gz
> > +install zinstall:
> > +     $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/$(boot)/install.sh $(KERNELRELEASE) \
> > +     $(boot)/$(install-image) System.map "$(INSTALL_PATH)"
> >
> >  archclean:
> >       $(Q)$(MAKE) $(clean)=$(boot)
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/Makefile b/arch/riscv/boot/Makefile
> > index 6bf299f70c27..becd0621071c 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/boot/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/Makefile
> > @@ -58,11 +58,3 @@ $(obj)/Image.lzo: $(obj)/Image FORCE
> >
> >  $(obj)/loader.bin: $(obj)/loader FORCE
> >       $(call if_changed,objcopy)
> > -
> > -install:
> > -     $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/$(src)/install.sh $(KERNELRELEASE) \
> > -     $(obj)/Image System.map "$(INSTALL_PATH)"
> > -
> > -zinstall:
> > -     $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/$(src)/install.sh $(KERNELRELEASE) \
> > -     $(obj)/Image.gz System.map "$(INSTALL_PATH)"
>
> Admittidly I don't see a reason to do it this way either, but it looks
> like the other common ports (I checked arm64 and x86) are doing things
> this way.  I don't really care that much about which way we do it, but
> it'd be better to keep everyone aligned.
>
> Are you converting the other ports over as well?

Yes.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada