From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:35:08 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 01/10] New, simpler, infrastructure for building the Linux kernel In-Reply-To: <87hbkyajnf.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> References:

<851a84fbbe113196adb69e1a241e18a958cd77c2.1276454802.git.thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <87bpb8b0ld.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20100619161327.3748f49c@surf> <87hbkyajnf.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20100620153508.4e7e2a28@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:48:20 +0200 Peter Korsgaard wrote: > Well, "stable" has different meanings to different people. When I think > of stable in regard to kernels, I think of the stable at kernel.org > releases (E.G. 2.6.x.y). Ah, I see. For me, 2.6.x versions are also stable versions, by oppposition with -rc versions. But ok, I've changed this. > Thomas> I could add another option to say ? same version as kernel headers ?. > Thomas> However, I'd prefer to keep the "BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_2_6_34" option as it > Thomas> is: remember that in the external toolchain case, ? same version as > Thomas> kernel headers ? doesn't make sense. > > Ok. You could hide the option if !internal toolchain. Sure, done. > Well, only add it if you need the text string for something (E.G. the > make target). If you prefer doing it in make, then that's fine as well - > It's not something that needs to change often. > > In general I think it makes sense to keep these things in Kconfig when > you need to keep several lines in sync, and otherwise don't need to > change anything in .mk files (E.G. when adding new kernel headers, > busybox versions, ..). Ok. I haven't changed this part for now. > The point is that it isn't consistent. We don't do this for > uclibc/busybox, and you don't do it for defconfigs in the kernel tree > (which often are also slightly outdated). Ok, I got rid of it. > Thomas> make uImage only builds the uImage kernel image. make with no arguments > Thomas> builds the default kernel image (zImage in the ARM case) and also > Thomas> builds the modules. > > This seems platform/arch specific. On PPC, the default image is > typically uImage, so make with no arguments builds uImage and modules. > > Does this mean that the existing advanced linux support is broken on > ARM/uImage when using a modular kernel? - There it looks like it just > calls 'make uImage'. I always use a nonmodular kernel, so I never > noticed. The current advanced thing does "make modules ; make modules_install" when CONFIG_MODULES is enabled. > Thomas> make uImage > Thomas> make modules > > Probably better to do make; make (where format is uImage/zImage/bzImage/..) Isn't this what I'm doing already ? Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com