Return-path: Received: from mail.redfish-solutions.com ([66.232.79.143]:33648 "EHLO mail.redfish-solutions.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752833AbZHFSbF (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:31:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7B2163.4030805@redfish-solutions.com> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:30:59 -0700 From: "Philip A. Prindeville" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Roskin CC: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Jon Loeliger , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CRDA and cross-compilation References: <4A7A8F7E.6020503@redfish-solutions.com> <1249569993.6446.2.camel@jdl-desktop> <1249576886.14919.16.camel@mj> <43e72e890908060956j3548c23ak4cf98d11c32efec0@mail.gmail.com> <1249580707.14919.29.camel@mj> In-Reply-To: <1249580707.14919.29.camel@mj> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:56 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> ACK, is it possible to make it simpler? > > OK, here's my take. > > We only need a native compiler to verify regulatory.bin. I believe it's > orthogonal to building CRDA. > > For someone doing a cross-compilation, it makes no sense to verify the > installed regulatory.bin. Thus, the verification should be optional. > > But the compilation of regdbdump shouldn't be. Firstly, it's installed > by "make install". Secondly, somebody may want to verify regulatory.bin > on the target system. > > Here's the patch: > [snip] Dumb question but, why not just build a target and host version each of regdumpdb? -Philip