From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:25:47 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] equivalent of a 'make modules' In-Reply-To: <006101cca967$050bb240$0400a8c0@dspcgrnzks9p98> References: <003b01cca958$91486a00$0400a8c0@dspcgrnzks9p98> <20111122230429.2bef52c2@skate> <005d01cca963$b9a61eb0$0400a8c0@dspcgrnzks9p98> <20111122232914.76a86e7d@skate> <006101cca967$050bb240$0400a8c0@dspcgrnzks9p98> Message-ID: <20111123092547.2898f799@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:35:20 -0600, "Jeff Krasky" a ?crit : > Ok, this is where it becomes new for me. Is this the "only way" or > the "most convenient" way, or the "simplest way" for someone not that > familiar with BuildRoot? Basically you have the choice of : * Generating your system with Buildroot, then manually build EtherCAT outside of Buildroot using the Buildroot cross-compiler and the kernel built by Buildroot. Advantages: I don't see any, except maybe the fact that you don't need to learn out to create packages in Buildroot. Drawbacks: it might actually be *harder* to achieve than to create a package in Buildroot, and your build process is no longer nicely integrated. * Add a package in Buildroot. Requires learning a bit about how to create packages (but our documentation on this is quite good I think, and the Buildroot source tree is full of examples). In the end, it might be simpler to package your software component than building it manually, and you have the benefit of having it nicely integrated. Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com