On 10:22 Mon 23 Jul , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:18:07AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 10:05 Mon 23 Jul , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:02:08AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > On 09:16 Mon 23 Jul , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Does it really? > > > > > > > > > > I see this goes back to: > > > > > > > > > > commit 8a03bff03ebf36b7460e6ec43259bc8b40731ece > > > > > Author: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Date: Thu Jul 3 10:30:44 2008 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > [arm] Add cleanup flags only when modules are disabled. Otherwise > > > > > we remove functions from the binary which are needed for > > > > > modules > > > > > > > > > > I can't see though why this should happen. What is needed for modules > > > > > is defined by EXPORT_SYMBOL. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately modules are quite broken atm for me anyway, so I can't > > > > > test. > > > > except you need to use the barebox file to link the ko > > > > > > > > and that is one of the reason we do need to call the compressed barebox > > > > zbarebox > > > > > > > > and I'd like to be able to detect when it's a normal barebox and a zbarebox > > > > so need to have start.c compiled 2 times > > > > > > > > I really do not like this link with the whole barebox in the zbarebox > > > > > > > > keep stuff clean and seperated is really better > > > > > > Well, send patches ;) > > THis is what this patch do > > But it breaks the build For this we need some help because one of the way would be to have a new target comp-y so we can specify it accross the source Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
