[i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Nishanth Menon]

Honor CROSS_COMPILE for builds. useful for folks using
building for platforms like ARM using cross compiler
toolchain. CC could be reused as well, but usage of
CROSS_COMPILE seems more similar to what we have
for u-boot, kernel etc..

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
---
against svn:
r5894 | khali | 2010-12-12 07:22:29 -0600 (Sun, 12 Dec 2010) | 3 lines

Make value arrays const for block write functions. Patch from Roman
Fietze.

 Makefile |   13 +++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index b98a4c3..49e07fe 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -21,7 +21,20 @@ INSTALL_DIR	:= $(INSTALL) -m 755 -d
 INSTALL_PROGRAM	:= $(INSTALL) -m 755
 RM		:= rm -f
 
+# Acknowledge if CROSS_COMPILE is used
+ifeq ($(CROSS_COMPILE),)
 CC	?= gcc
+else
+AS	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)as
+LD	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld
+CC	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
+AR	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar
+NM	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)nm
+LDR	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)ldr
+STRIP	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)strip
+OBJCOPY	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)objcopy
+OBJDUMP	= $(CROSS_COMPILE)objdump
+endif
 
 CFLAGS	?= -O2
 # When debugging, use the following instead
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]


> Honor CROSS_COMPILE for builds. useful for folks using
> building for platforms like ARM using cross compiler
> toolchain. CC could be reused as well, but usage of
> CROSS_COMPILE seems more similar to what we have
> for u-boot, kernel etc..

Then again, the vast majority of userspace-projects do not use CROSS_COMPILE.
Build systems like ptxdist and buildroot have done fine with overriding CC so
far. I don't see much gain in that addition.

But thanks for the contribution anyway :)

Kind regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Nishanth Menon]

Wolfram Sang wrote, on 01/08/2011 01:23 PM:
> Then again, the vast majority of userspace-projects do not use CROSS_COMPILE.
> Build systems like ptxdist and buildroot have done fine with overriding CC so
> far. I don't see much gain in that addition.
>
The same is true for CROSS_COMPILE as well.. since the patch does still 
allow CC to be over-ridden (as was the previous behavior), why not add 
CROSS_COMPILE as well considering folks who could be cross compiling 
just i2ctools without using buildroot and the likes?

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1090 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 02:32:21PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Wolfram Sang wrote, on 01/08/2011 01:23 PM:
> >Then again, the vast majority of userspace-projects do not use CROSS_COMPILE.
> >Build systems like ptxdist and buildroot have done fine with overriding CC so
> >far. I don't see much gain in that addition.
> >
> The same is true for CROSS_COMPILE as well.. since the patch does
> still allow CC to be over-ridden (as was the previous behavior), why
> not add CROSS_COMPILE as well considering folks who could be cross
> compiling just i2ctools without using buildroot and the likes?

You can override CC even without a build-system :) I would sum it up like this:
On the positive side you could call it "more flexible", on the negative side
you could call it "redundant". I wouldn't pick it up, but I surely have no
strong feelings about it. It is up to Jean, after all.

Kind regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Jean Delvare]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:01:30 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 02:32:21PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > Wolfram Sang wrote, on 01/08/2011 01:23 PM:
> > >Then again, the vast majority of userspace-projects do not use CROSS_COMPILE.
> > >Build systems like ptxdist and buildroot have done fine with overriding CC so
> > >far. I don't see much gain in that addition.
> > >
> > The same is true for CROSS_COMPILE as well.. since the patch does
> > still allow CC to be over-ridden (as was the previous behavior), why
> > not add CROSS_COMPILE as well considering folks who could be cross
> > compiling just i2ctools without using buildroot and the likes?
> 
> You can override CC even without a build-system :) I would sum it up like this:
> On the positive side you could call it "more flexible", on the negative side
> you could call it "redundant". I wouldn't pick it up, but I surely have no
> strong feelings about it. It is up to Jean, after all.

I don't have a strong opinion on this either. But I don't get the point
of setting values for AS, LD, AR etc. when they don't seem to be used
anywhere. And STRIP is set too, but "strip" hard-coded in
tools/Module.mk, so I fail to see how that would work. What am I
missing?

-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Nishanth Menon]

Jean Delvare had written, on 01/10/2011 08:26 AM, the following:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:01:30 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 02:32:21PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> Wolfram Sang wrote, on 01/08/2011 01:23 PM:
>>>> Then again, the vast majority of userspace-projects do not use CROSS_COMPILE.
>>>> Build systems like ptxdist and buildroot have done fine with overriding CC so
>>>> far. I don't see much gain in that addition.
>>>>
>>> The same is true for CROSS_COMPILE as well.. since the patch does
>>> still allow CC to be over-ridden (as was the previous behavior), why
>>> not add CROSS_COMPILE as well considering folks who could be cross
>>> compiling just i2ctools without using buildroot and the likes?
>> You can override CC even without a build-system :) I would sum it up like this:
>> On the positive side you could call it "more flexible", on the negative side
>> you could call it "redundant". I wouldn't pick it up, but I surely have no
>> strong feelings about it. It is up to Jean, after all.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on this either. But I don't get the point
> of setting values for AS, LD, AR etc. when they don't seem to be used
> anywhere. And STRIP is set too, but "strip" hard-coded in
> tools/Module.mk, so I fail to see how that would work. What am I
> missing?
I think I should have done just CC alone. I missed the strip one. but 
are we interested in having CROSS_COMPILE? if yes, I can cleanup the 
patch and resubmit.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:27:52 -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Jean Delvare had written, on 01/10/2011 08:26 AM, the following:
> > I don't have a strong opinion on this either. But I don't get the point
> > of setting values for AS, LD, AR etc. when they don't seem to be used
> > anywhere. And STRIP is set too, but "strip" hard-coded in
> > tools/Module.mk, so I fail to see how that would work. What am I
> > missing?
> I think I should have done just CC alone. I missed the strip one. but 
> are we interested in having CROSS_COMPILE? if yes, I can cleanup the 
> patch and resubmit.

Well, you proposed it, so you should know if you are interested ;)

What's certain is that I won't apply the patch as is, so it indeed
needs to be cleaned up and resubmitted if you want me to apply it.

-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Nishanth Menon]

Jean Delvare had written, on 01/10/2011 08:44 AM, the following:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:27:52 -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> Jean Delvare had written, on 01/10/2011 08:26 AM, the following:
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on this either. But I don't get the point
>>> of setting values for AS, LD, AR etc. when they don't seem to be used
>>> anywhere. And STRIP is set too, but "strip" hard-coded in
>>> tools/Module.mk, so I fail to see how that would work. What am I
>>> missing?
>> I think I should have done just CC alone. I missed the strip one. but 
>> are we interested in having CROSS_COMPILE? if yes, I can cleanup the 
>> patch and resubmit.
> 
> Well, you proposed it, so you should know if you are interested ;)
> 
> What's certain is that I won't apply the patch as is, so it indeed
> needs to be cleaned up and resubmitted if you want me to apply it.
> 
Touché ;). will resubmit it :) thanks for the pointers in strip. I will 
try to ensure that we have just the ones we need.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:46:53 -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Jean Delvare had written, on 01/10/2011 08:44 AM, the following:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:27:52 -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >> I think I should have done just CC alone. I missed the strip one. but 
> >> are we interested in having CROSS_COMPILE? if yes, I can cleanup the 
> >> patch and resubmit.
> > 
> > Well, you proposed it, so you should know if you are interested ;)
> > 
> > What's certain is that I won't apply the patch as is, so it indeed
> > needs to be cleaned up and resubmitted if you want me to apply it.
> > 
> Touché ;). will resubmit it :) thanks for the pointers in strip. I will 
> try to ensure that we have just the ones we need.

You did not resubmit anything, and you just missed the train. If you
want your patch in i2c-tools 3.1.1, please consider resubmitting with
the required changes applied.

-- 
Jean Delvare