From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from puffin.external.hp.com (puffin.external.hp.com [192.25.206.4]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24F2482A for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:22:45 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200106132122.PAA01189@puffin.external.hp.com> To: Paul Bame Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] PALO/kernel-build change proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:31:38 MDT." Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:22:10 -0600 From: Grant Grundler List-ID: Paul Bame wrote: ... > When self hosted, there's usually no need to run palo after every > kernel build since palo boots out of the file system by file name. > So I propose that the common self-hosted use model be to use simple 'make' > in the kernel tree [and make modules or whatever]. The resulting 'vmlinux' > file can then be copied to the desired location. On x86, "make install" will do all the right things to install the freshly built kernel but doesn't do a damn thing for kernel modules. Need to run "make modules" and "make modules_install" to really make sure eveything is in sync. > I propose that 'make palo' be changed to simply run 'palo -f ./palo.conf' > after vmlinux is built. This means palo would have to be in the $PATH > and that the top-level linux source directory would contain a > suitable palo.conf file. I've been using this model for cross-compiling > for several months and like it. I would document how xc-ers can best > compile and "install" palo as well as supply a palo.conf file with > our typical configurations. > > What is 'make palo' today would be changed to 'make buildrunpalo'. The > longer name is more truthful and less convenient on purpose. How about "make lifimage"? That's the only reason I run "make palo" in the XC environment. Having a XC-palo in the environment is no problem. In the XC env, I don't expect "make install" to do the right thing (tm). grant Grant Grundler parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker +1.408.447.7253