On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Jon Loeliger<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Jon Loeliger<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Do you agree or disagree with me when I say that the regdbdump program
>> > might need to be compiled twice -- once for the host and once for the
>> > target?
>>
>> Why?
>
> The existing binary regulatory DB binary is verified on the host
> using these rules. (This is from my version of the makefile, but
> they are there in the original too.):
>
> all: host target $(REG_BIN) $(BUILD_ALL) verify
>
> verify: $(REG_BIN) host/regdbdump
> $(NQ) ' CHK $(REG_BIN)'
> $(Q)./host/regdbdump $(REG_BIN) >/dev/null
>
> That is, as part of the host build process, the regdbdump tool
> is run *on the host*.
This helps to understand a little better some of your intentions, may
be good to mention this as part of your patches. Hm, interesting... I
suppose we don't want to just disable this check then.
> Ultimately, the regdbdump utility may *also* be needed or
> wanted on the target too.
ACK.
Luis
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:49 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Jon Loeliger<[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 10:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Jon Loeliger<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Do you agree or disagree with me when I say that the regdbdump program
> >> > might need to be compiled twice -- once for the host and once for the
> >> > target?
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > The existing binary regulatory DB binary is verified on the host
> > using these rules. (This is from my version of the makefile, but
> > they are there in the original too.):
> >
> > all: host target $(REG_BIN) $(BUILD_ALL) verify
> >
> > verify: $(REG_BIN) host/regdbdump
> > $(NQ) ' CHK $(REG_BIN)'
> > $(Q)./host/regdbdump $(REG_BIN) >/dev/null
> >
> > That is, as part of the host build process, the regdbdump tool
> > is run *on the host*.
>
> This helps to understand a little better some of your intentions, may
> be good to mention this as part of your patches. Hm, interesting... I
> suppose we don't want to just disable this check then.
Luis,
Shall I supply more or different information than what
was in my git log message?:
The regdbdump tool is really a host executable that is used
during the build process. It could also be installed and
used on the target, but two separate compilations are needed
to achieve that goal.
Currently, regdbdump is only built for the target, and thus
cross-compilation of the tool is really feasible without
this patch (or one like it).
Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <[email protected]>
Though, we should s/feasible/infeasible/ there too. :-)
> > Ultimately, the regdbdump utility may *also* be needed or
> > wanted on the target too.
>
> ACK.
>
> Luis
Thanks,
jdl