Re: [PATCH 6/7] compressed: rename barebox target to zbarebox and zbarebox.bin

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 10:22 Mon 23 Jul     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:18:07AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 10:05 Mon 23 Jul     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:02:08AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > On 09:16 Mon 23 Jul     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does it really?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see this goes back to:
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit 8a03bff03ebf36b7460e6ec43259bc8b40731ece
> > > > > Author: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> > > > > Date:   Thu Jul 3 10:30:44 2008 +0200
> > > > > 
> > > > >     [arm] Add cleanup flags only when modules are disabled. Otherwise
> > > > >           we remove functions from the binary which are needed for
> > > > >           modules
> > > > > 
> > > > > I can't see though why this should happen. What is needed for modules
> > > > > is defined by EXPORT_SYMBOL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unfortunately modules are quite broken atm for me anyway, so I can't
> > > > > test.
> > > > except you need to use the barebox file to link the ko
> > > > 
> > > > and that is one of the reason we do need to call the compressed barebox
> > > > zbarebox
> > > > 
> > > > and I'd like to be able to detect when it's a normal barebox and a zbarebox
> > > > so need to have start.c compiled 2 times
> > > > 
> > > > I really do not like this link with the whole barebox in the zbarebox
> > > > 
> > > > keep stuff clean and seperated is really better
> > > 
> > > Well, send patches ;)
> > THis is what this patch do
> 
> But it breaks the build
For this we need some help because one of the way would be to have a new
target comp-y so we can specify it accross the source

Best Regards,
J.

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox