Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] buildtools/chkincs: use a staging directory for headers

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 12:22:43PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sept 2025 at 11:32, Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > In general looks ok to me.
> > > > One small comment though - can we not have "staging" as a top-level
> > > > directory, but instead hide it inside the buildtools directory, or even the
> > > > chkincs directory? I dislike having too many subdirectories directly off
> > > > the root of the project, especially ones purely for internal tooling.
> > >
> > > Well, at first I was trying to change the whole build process iow rely
> > > only on the staging directory and remove all the include_directories:
> > > directives from the declare_dependency() objects.
> > > Libraries and apps were ok, but there were a *lot* of complications
> > > with drivers (what a *huge mess*, especially for NXP drivers with
> > > "compat.h" includes, and Marvell drivers to a smaller extent).
> > > I may retry in the future with some AI tool that will brute force this :-).
> > >
> > > For now, I gave up but did not reconsider the location of the staging part.
> > > Moving to buildtools is indeed saner as it is only for the check now,
> > > and I can also make this staging stuff dependent on the check_includes
> > > option now.
> > >
> >
> > I wonder should we just consider making chkincs an install-time job rather
> > than a build-time one? We could look to build chkincs using a custom
> > install script (meson.add_install_script) after the header copies are
> > already done for us. That should cut down on the complexity within the
> 
> Not sure I follow, what would this install script look like?
> Is it not similar to the makefile solution I proposed previously?
> 
I don't remember that proposal, sorry, so it may well be something you
proposed previously!

/Bruce