Adding David back... -M
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Matthew McClintock <m...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I just checked and we do have a few obscure bits in our kernel tree's >>> header files. Nothing that 99.9% would use but it seems reasonable to >>> include these... >> >> Do you want applications for sdk host to be built using these obscure bits ? >> if yes I would like to know why? >> >> since then you are creating a scenariou where nativesdk is dependent on >> target >> kernel and we need to fix it so that nativesdk can be common again. >> >> if patches you are carrying are good for nativesdk headers can they be made >> available for other kernels like linux-yocto e.g. ? >> >> right now if we do this we are pretty much saying fsl machine layer can >> really >> not mix with other BSPs. Many people use yocto commonly on more than one kind >> of CPU and this does not scale. > > Hmm I think I was just confused. We don't need any modifications for > the headers for nativesdk foo (that is the x86 tools in > meta-toolchain). > > So, I think everything is OK as is.. if you look at meta-toolchain you > will see it includes our kernel's headers for cross compiling. > > -M _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
