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