Claudio Fontana writes:
[...]
> I am tempted to remove the old compatibility gunks that are marked as "to be
> removed some time after 4.1" as the second patch in the series,
> any thoughts? (Markus?)
Yes, please!
Hello Philippe, Markus,
On 4/10/20 3:00 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 4/9/20 6:33 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Hi Claudio,
>>
>> On 4/9/20 2:43 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> when building dtc/libfdt, we were previously using dtc/Makefile,
>>> which tries to build some artifacts t
On 4/9/20 6:33 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Claudio,
On 4/9/20 2:43 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
when building dtc/libfdt, we were previously using dtc/Makefile,
which tries to build some artifacts that are not needed,
and can complain on stderr about the absence of tools that
are not req
Hi Claudio,
On 4/9/20 2:43 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
when building dtc/libfdt, we were previously using dtc/Makefile,
which tries to build some artifacts that are not needed,
and can complain on stderr about the absence of tools that
are not required to build just libfdt.
Instead, build only t
when building dtc/libfdt, we were previously using dtc/Makefile,
which tries to build some artifacts that are not needed,
and can complain on stderr about the absence of tools that
are not required to build just libfdt.
Instead, build only the strict necessary to get libfdt.a .
Remove the subdir-
