RE: [Madwifi-users] Compilation out-of-box on 3 platforms
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
otaku
From: Dustin M. <dhm...@ad...> - 2005-11-03 23:03:16
|
Hi Pavel, > > When I do a 'make > > all', which includes the tools directory, the TOOLSPREFIX argument is > using > > the default value from the hal directory rather than the CROSS_COMPILE > > argument (logical since it is not a kernel build). > > I don't see that. tools/Makefile doesn't include any makefiles. It can > only take TOOLSPREFIX from the command line or the environment. > > What I could do would be to set TOOLSPREFIX to $(CROSS_COMPILE) in > tools/Makefile. P.S. I'm applying it. Thanks! > I guess I meant that currently since nothing is included by the tools/Makefile, that the CROSS_COMPILE variable is not being pulled from the kernel tree's Makefile. Are you setting CROSS_COMPILE at the make command line or is it set to a default in your kernel tree Makefile? > Since we have touched this topic, let me explain the motivation behind > the changes. > > The main reason to redefine TOOLSPREFIX was to reduce dependency on the > Atheros *.inc files. After my changes to x86_64-elf.inc were reverted > twice in a few days (first by creation of madwifi-ng, then in revision > 1260) it became clear to me that the only way to win this > commit-and-revert battle was by a workaround. I had the same phenomenon with the xscale .inc files. A compiler flag change was reverted by the Atheros commit. > > Ideally, the hal/public/*.inc files should be ignored and TARGET should > be set based on the contents of the Linux .config file (or maybe on > kernel CFLAGS). But that would be quite a lot of work to verify it for > various ARM systems, so I'm not sure I'll be able to do it soon. > The only funky part about ARM will be figuring out which platforms will use the xscale vs. armv4 vs arm9 targets. |