Hi Laszlo, On 3/9/19 1:48 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > We don't (can't) have a recipe for building just $(EFIROM); therefore, > while we call the target $(EFIROM), we actually build all of the edk2 > BaseTools. Rename the target to edk2-basetools, and update the iPXE > prerequisite accordingly. This will let other targets depend on > "edk2-basetools", where an $(EFIROM) pre-requisite would be misleading. > > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > --- > roms/Makefile | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/roms/Makefile b/roms/Makefile > index 78d5dd18c301..2e83ececa25a 100644 > --- a/roms/Makefile > +++ b/roms/Makefile > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ pxe-rom-%: build-pxe-roms > > efirom: $(patsubst %,efi-rom-%,$(pxerom_variants)) > > -efi-rom-%: build-pxe-roms build-efi-roms $(EFIROM) > +efi-rom-%: build-pxe-roms build-efi-roms edk2-basetools > $(EFIROM) -f "0x$(VID)" -i "0x$(DID)" -l 0x02 \ > -b ipxe/src/bin/$(VID)$(DID).rom \ > -ec ipxe/src/bin-i386-efi/$(VID)$(DID).efidrv \ > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ build-efi-roms: build-pxe-roms > $(patsubst %,bin-i386-efi/%.efidrv,$(pxerom_targets)) \ > $(patsubst %,bin-x86_64-efi/%.efidrv,$(pxerom_targets)) > > -$(EFIROM): > +edk2-basetools:
Should we add: $(MAKE) -f Makefile.edk2 submodules from your next patch? There might be a circular dependency else, if the user doesn't init the submodules manually. The next patch add a make dependency 'efi' -> 'edk2-basetools', but 'edk2-basetools' build the BaseTools within edk2/. > $(MAKE) -C edk2/BaseTools > > slof: >