[uClibc] Problems building for AMD Alchemy processors.
Erik Andersen
andersen at codepoet.org
Mon May 23 22:50:51 UTC 2005
On Mon May 23, 2005 at 11:18:06PM +0100, Charles Palmer wrote:
> Hi Erik
>
> I had tried that (it seemed natural!) but make fails if I select both
> "Board support for the AMD development boards " and "AMD Alchemy DBAu1500
> Development Board Support". (I've now done this twice with identical
> results).
>
> So:
>
> 1 This doesn't work for me (why?)
Which gcc version did you select? Something other than the
defaults perhaps?
> 2 It is not clear what selecting the AMD board is for - can you tell me?
It selects kernel source, kernel configuration, uClibc config,
busybox config, and system config that work for my Alchemy test
board.
> If the function of buildroot is to build cross-compilation tools, libraries
> and a root file system, then why does it need to know what my target
> hardware board is? And why (as seems to be the case below) are we building
> an ethernet driver?
Because if it didn't know that, it wouldn't be able to build
a working linux kernel configured to run on on the target device.
> 3 My board uses an Au1200 chip, rather than an Au1500 chip.
> The Au1200 does not have the in-built Ethernet controller that
> the Au1500 has (though my board has an SMC Ethernet chip), so
> even if the make process did not fail, it is not clear to me
> that it would have built tools and a filesystem that is
> relevant to my hardware.
Then you will just have to modify buildroot to match your target.
That is for example, exactly what I did to add Au1500 support....
> 4 And anyway (back to my original question) why is it that
> my original build process and its resulting cross-tools appear
> to be building code that does not run on my target?
dunno. It works for me.
> 5 Could it be that the reason that make fails with the
> Au1500 selected is the same reason that programs built with the
> toolchain won't run (when built with the Au1500 de-selected)?
> Is there something wrong with my paths, or tools, or Linux
> distribution, or environment variables or....?
Maybe. I use gcc 3.3.5 for my board. I'm guessing you used
something else.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
More information about the uClibc
mailing list