While, I'm not an expert, I would like to point out: http://kernel.org/doc/index-old.html (the new index references this but the information isn't on the new index page directly).
One thing mentioned is that a make distclean is required for reasonable results between any run with different architectures. So you can't run a make scripts to get scripts for the local system in a build directory configured for cross compiling for the device and expect it to work correctly. Also, about the config prompts: during dependency checking, the .config file is validated, and if it fails validation, make oldconfig is run, as it assumes the config was pulled from a previous kernel version. Since a .config file is ARCH specific, it will almost always be invalid when checked against a different architecture, and thus fire off a make oldconfig. This is why you get prompted to answer questions when you do "make scripts" and have a .config for another architecture. Also, I suspect you need to ensure the cross compiler is being called when necessary for the make scripts. It looks like the errors are from passing arm gcc parameters to an x86 gcc. You can try "make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=/???/" instead, where /???/ is the prefix to your arm cross compiler. The kernel build actually uses both cross and non-cross compilers during build so you have some support tools compiled to run natively and others that run on the end machine, so you don't want to override CXX and C++ to be the cross compiler. Brian On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 00:48 +0000, Patrick Turley wrote: > On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> > wrote: > > > On 13-01-23 10:17 AM, Patrick Turley wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Bruce Ashfield<bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> > >> wrote: > >>> On 13-01-23 12:34 AM, Patrick Turley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Bruce > >>>> Ashfield<bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 13-01-23 12:14 AM, Patrick Turley wrote: > >>>>>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Bruce > >>>>>> Ashfield<bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 13-01-22 9:26 PM, Patrick Turley wrote: > >>> > >>> Argh. I'll have to just run the commands myself and stop spamming the > >>> list with ideas :) It's just a matter of making lkc accept the defaults > >>> (i.e. you could also use allyesconfig, or allnoconfig) or even better > >>> not trigger that config check at all. > >> > >> You're very kind to have spent so much time on my problem already. I look > >> forward to hearing back. > > > > I'm not sure if you are still interested in this topic, but I took > > a few minutes to look into this more today .. just to understand > > exactly what is happening. > > > > It is what was discussed on the thread already, when you invoke > > make scripts, there is an explicit dependency on auto.conf and > > that is what triggers the make oldconfig if the .config is newer > > than it is. Technically we are safe from this, assuming that the > > .config and captured auto.conf match, and that auto.conf is in the > > SDK. > > > > The other way that oldconfig is triggered in my experience (and > > testing today) is what we mentioned before. If your .config was > > generated with ARCH=<foo> (even ARCH=i386 the default) and you then > > execute 'make scripts', you'll trigger the oldconfig. > > > > So to avoid it, you should execute your make scripts with ARCH=<your arch> > > on the command line. > > > > As for saving ARCH in the .config, it has been considered in the past, > > but never implemented. Other elements such as CROSS_COMPILE are now > > saved, but not ARCH= since it isn't directly used in the .config, it's > > a Makefile construct. > > I absolutely *am* still interested in this issue, and thank you for taking > another look. > > There are two commands that I'm interested in executing: > > -- make oldconfig > > -- make scripts > > (Since I install the SDK under /opt, I use sudo when running these commands, > but I don't *think* that's important.) > > > Here's what happens with the first command: > > $ sudo make oldconfig ARCH=arm > HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep > HOSTCC scripts/basic/docproc > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/conf.o > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/kxgettext.o > SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c > SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/lex.zconf.c > SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.hash.c > HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.o > HOSTLD scripts/kconfig/conf > scripts/kconfig/conf --oldconfig Kconfig > # > # configuration written to .config > # > > As you say, adding "ARCH=arm" puts the build at ease and it completes just > fine. > > > Here's what happens with the second command: > > $ sudo make scripts ARCH=arm > scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig > HOSTCC scripts/genksyms/genksyms.o > SHIPPED scripts/genksyms/lex.c > SHIPPED scripts/genksyms/parse.h > SHIPPED scripts/genksyms/keywords.c > HOSTCC scripts/genksyms/lex.o > SHIPPED scripts/genksyms/parse.c > HOSTCC scripts/genksyms/parse.o > HOSTLD scripts/genksyms/genksyms > CC scripts/mod/empty.o > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-mlittle-endian" > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-mapcs" > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-mno-sched-prolog" > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-mabi=aapcs-linux" > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-mno-thumb-interwork" > scripts/mod/empty.c:1: error: bad value (armv5t) for -march= switch > scripts/mod/empty.c:1: error: bad value (armv5t) for -mtune= switch > make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [scripts/mod] Error 2 > make: *** [scripts] Error 2 > > Recall that, when I do *not* give the "ARCH=arm" argument, I get reams of > config questions, but the build works. > > This is an improvement in that the config questions are gone but, of course, > the build fails. > > Perhaps it *should* fail. Perhaps I'm doing something that actually doesn't > make sense. Or perhaps I'm doing something that Yocto just isn't ready to > support. At this point, I should say: > > 1) I have a workaround for all this, so I am *not* dead in the water. > > 2) I am a kernel building n00b and it legitimately may not be worth your time > (or anyone else's) to continue to look at this until I "catch up." I don't > want anyone throwing up their hands in frustration and saying "Doesn't this > guy know anything?" It's perfectly reasonable to cut me off at this point :) > > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
