From patchwork Thu Aug 6 17:45:07 2009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Pavel Roskin X-Patchwork-Id: 39657 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.176.167]) by demeter.kernel.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n76HjE3C001970 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:45:14 GMT Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755810AbZHFRpK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:45:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755971AbZHFRpK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:45:10 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:9269 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755615AbZHFRpJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:45:09 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2009 13:45:10 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C02534C6A; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: CRDA and cross-compilation From: Pavel Roskin To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Jon Loeliger , "Philip A. Prindeville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <43e72e890908060956j3548c23ak4cf98d11c32efec0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A7A8F7E.6020503@redfish-solutions.com> <1249569993.6446.2.camel@jdl-desktop> <1249576886.14919.16.camel@mj> <43e72e890908060956j3548c23ak4cf98d11c32efec0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:45:07 -0400 Message-Id: <1249580707.14919.29.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:56 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > ACK, is it possible to make it simpler? OK, here's my take. We only need a native compiler to verify regulatory.bin. I believe it's orthogonal to building CRDA. For someone doing a cross-compilation, it makes no sense to verify the installed regulatory.bin. Thus, the verification should be optional. But the compilation of regdbdump shouldn't be. Firstly, it's installed by "make install". Secondly, somebody may want to verify regulatory.bin on the target system. Here's the patch: crda: make it possible to disable verification Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin --- Makefile | 7 +++++-- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index b93b735..3cc61c2 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -24,7 +24,9 @@ PUBKEY_DIR?=pubkeys CFLAGS += -Wall -g -all: $(REG_BIN) crda intersect verify +all: all_noverify verify + +all_noverify: crda intersect regdbdump ifeq ($(USE_OPENSSL),1) CFLAGS += -DUSE_OPENSSL `pkg-config --cflags openssl` @@ -74,11 +76,12 @@ $(REG_BIN): $(NQ) ' EXIST ' $(REG_BIN) $(NQ) $(NQ) ERROR: The file: $(REG_BIN) is missing. You need this in place in order - $(NQ) to build CRDA. You can get it from: + $(NQ) to verify CRDA. You can get it from: $(NQ) $(NQ) $(REG_GIT) $(NQ) $(NQ) "Once cloned (no need to build) cp regulatory.bin to $(REG_BIN)" + $(NQ) "Use \"make noverify\" to disable verification" $(NQ) $(Q) exit 1