"Eric W. Biederman" wrote: > > Tyson D Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Since I'm working on custom hardware I have the luxury of an 8Meg flash > > that I can program from Linux using my own utils. As such, when I build > > a system, I don't build the kernel with linuxbios. However, (at least > > for the version of linuxbios I'm still using) linuxbios Makefiles assume > > that a kernel is needed for building a full rom image when all I > > actually want is a 64K block that is only linuxbios. I have managed by > > touching a few files that it considers necessary dependencies (but are > > not ) and by using make on selected targets. With this I am able to > > build just linuxbios without a kernel image. > > > > I build the kernel image separately. > > > > If it doesn't get done before I get updated, I will be submitting > > patches to allow simple creation of just linuxbios and make building > > full rom images with kernels optional. > > Currently we still assume there is something there. But it can > be an elf image. > > The current workaround is to do: > USE_ELF_BOOT=1 > payload /dev/null > > And it doesn't try to attach anything. I think > a strong argument can be made that you almost always want a payload > in your romimage so building it all together isn't a bad thing.
Currently I don't have any payload, but that will change when I update and use elf boot. I intend to move all my code with the command line interface for choosing kernel images, filesystems and kernel command lines out of the core linuxbios code into a standalone elf executable and then load the kernel from there. > > I am mentioning this now because Ron's problem above is related in that > > the linuxbios makefile assumes too great a scope. > > The rules have changed on that one and that is a small problem. Only the > make clean target was affected though. Generating a complete romimage > is a very reasonable scope. Especially if we want things to work > easily. I would say in most cases the LinuxBIOS makefile is not to > great in scope but simply poorly abstracted. I was referring to the assumed scope, not the maximum scope. The version I have assumes you will have a kernel and that resulted in dependencies being in places they didn't belong. > And figuring out what the reasonable varations are is tricky. But the > bootloader really is part of our scope. The current compromise is > with the payload option feels fairly close. I'll wait to see > how it handles your needs. > > An important point also is that you don't have to type make all > make linuxbios.rom always stops at the correct point. That is what I do, but there are dependencies that aren't real and are worked around by creating empty files the meet the depedency requirements. ...this may be improved in current versions of linuxbios. > Eric Cheers! Ty -- Tyson D Sawyer iRobot Corporation Senior Systems Engineer Military Systems Division [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robots for the Real World 603-532-6900 ext 206 http://www.irobot.com
