Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] docs: Update custom_kernel docs for split up of kernel scripts and tools

["Koch, Stefan" <stefan-koch@siemens.com>]

On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 12:50 +0000, Moessbauer, Felix (T CED OES-DE)
wrote:
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > > 
> > > thanks for this series. I tested it and it already improves the
> > > situation a lot (e.g. no native binaries in the arm64 packages).
> > > 
> > > Just a minor thing: When emulating the compilation of a kernel
> > > module
> > > for an otherwise cross-compiled kernel, the build still fails as
> > > the
> > > wrong dependency is attracted. I guess this can easily be fixed
> > > in
> > > module.inc:
> > > 
> > 
> > I have successful built a module that uses linux-module/module.inc
> > 
> > That works either using cross-compilation or using QEMU based
> > target
> > compilation.
> 
> Right, thanks for the clarification. In my tests I combined a cross-
> compiled kernel with a qemu-based compile of a module (and vice
> versa).
> These use-cases are pretty special, so I don't want to delay this
> series. I'll send my Tested-by for the whole series.

Same in my test case. Cross compiled kernel and built both kbuild
packages (native+target) and build module using qemu (and cross) - both
working.
> 
> Best regards,
> Felix
> 
> > 
> > > 1. add a debian dependency to the "correct" kbuild package (e.g.
> > > the
> > > one for arm64)
> > Was automatically used (:arm64) when ISAR_CROSS_COMPILE = "0"
> > otherwise
> > (:amd64)
> > > 2. add an explicit debian build dependency to the kbuild package
> > > for
> > > the non-native arch (e.g. arm64).
> > Was unchanged
> > > 
> > > Only do that on non-cross (bitbake via the bitbake var, debian
> > > either
> > > via bitbake or via a build-profile selector, e.g. "[cross]").
> > Was unchanged, too
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Felix
> > > 
> > Stefan
> > > 
> -- 
> Siemens AG, Technology
> Linux Expert Center
> 
> 

-- 
Stefan Koch
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com