On 03/02/2018 09:25 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 19:02, Wei Huang wrote:
>> The x86 boot block header currently is generated with a shell script.
>> To better support other CPUs (e.g. aarch64), we convert the script
>> into Makefile. This allows us to 1) support cross-compilation easily,
>> and 2) avoid creating a script file for every architecture.
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <w...@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com>
>> tests/migration/Makefile | 36
>> tests/migration/rebuild-x86-bootblock.sh | 33 -----------------------------
>> tests/migration/x86-a-b-bootblock.h | 2 +-
>> tests/migration/x86-a-b-bootblock.s | 5 ++---
>> 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 tests/migration/Makefile
>> delete mode 100755 tests/migration/rebuild-x86-bootblock.sh
>> diff --git a/tests/migration/Makefile b/tests/migration/Makefile
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..8fbedaa8b8
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/migration/Makefile
>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>> +# Copyright (c) 2016-2018 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates
>> +# Authors:
>> +# Dave Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
>> +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
>> +# See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
>> +export __note
>> +override define __note
>> +/* This file is automatically generated from
>> + * tests/migration/$<, edit that and then run
>> + * "make $@" inside tests/migration to update,
>> + * and then remember to send both in your patch submission.
>> + */
>> +all: x86-a-b-bootblock.h
>> +# Dummy command so that make thinks it has done something
>> + @true
>> +include $(SRC_PATH)/rules.mak
> does it work in not in-tree build?
Yes, I tried it with a out-of-tree build and it worked. More
specifically, because .h file (e.g. x86-a-b-bootblock.h) is provided,
this Makefile is disjoint from the main build system and it has to be
invoked explicitly. So it won't be affected by out-of-tree build.
>> +x86_64_cross_prefix := $(call find-cross-prefix,x86_64)
>> +x86-a-b-bootblock.h: x86-a-b-bootblock.s
>> + $(x86_64_cross_prefix)as --32 -march=i486 $< -o x86.o
>> + $(x86_64_cross_prefix)objcopy -O binary x86.o x86.boot
>> + dd if=x86.boot of=x86.bootsect bs=256 count=2 skip=124
>> + echo "$$__note" > $@
>> + xxd -i x86.bootsect | sed -e 's/.*int.*//' >> $@
> To be really in the spirit of a makefile, you should have a rule by target:
> x86.o: x86-a-b-bootblock.s
> $(x86_64_cross_prefix)as --32 -march=i486 $< -o x86.o
> x86.boot: x86.o
> $(x86_64_cross_prefix)objcopy -O binary x86.o x86.boot
> x86.bootsect: x86.boot
> dd if=x86.boot of=x86.bootsect bs=256 count=2 skip=124
> x86-a-b-bootblock.h: x86.bootsect
> echo "$$__note" > header.tmp
> xxd -i x86.bootsect | sed -e 's/.*int.*//' >> header.tmp
> mv header.tmp $@
It is cleaner, I agree. But it will make the Makefile quite bulky
(remember that we have to do the same for aarch64 and others).