From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net ([91.121.30.210]) by bombadil.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OqQjg-0003b3-HL for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:18:51 +0000 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:18:17 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Message-ID: <20100831131817.GA1883@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <4C7CD898.9040902@coresystems.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C7CD898.9040902@coresystems.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: barebox on x86 To: Stefan Reinauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On 12:25 Tue 31 Aug , Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Hi, > > here's some initial work on getting barebox working on x86 (again?). > > The patch is very ugly, and it makes some assumptions on me using > Darwin/Mac OS X to compile barebox. > What kind of becomes clear though, is that there is no clear distinction > between which set of headers are used for the user space utilities and > which set of headers are used for the barebox binary. I think that's the > reason why barebox features an include/linux directory which seems to > duplicate about half of what Linux usually has in there, but more than > barebox uses (or should use, ftm). > > With the attached patch I get as far as the linking stage. why do you touch it? barebox is self content so I do not understand why you do such modificaton specially uf we are supposed to do crosscompile Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox