[PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Mrinmayee Hingolikar]

Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
---
 ...nstallation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++
 recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb                |   30 ++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
 create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb

diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7d5ff94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+From 26d09063063593aec760151393226b96bc7ab9f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
+Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:01:15 +0530
+Subject: [PATCH] ipc: Added installation prefix feature to products.mak
+
+Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
+---
+ ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
+ products.mak  |    1 +
+ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
+
+diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
+index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
+--- a/ipc-linux.mak
++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
+@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
+ config:
+ 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
+ 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
+             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
+             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
+             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
+diff --git a/products.mak b/products.mak
+index e418d2f..4578a1e 100644
+--- a/products.mak
++++ b/products.mak
+@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ PLATFORM ?=
+ TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?= arm-none-linux-gnueabi
+ TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR ?= $(DEPOT)/_your_arm_code_gen_install_
+ TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX ?= $(TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR)/bin/$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME)-
++PREFIX ?= /usr/local
+ 
+ # Optional: Path to Linux Kernel - needed to build the MmRpc user libraries
+ # (for devices that support it)
+-- 
+1.7.9.5
+
diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb b/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..645061d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+DESCRIPTION = "TI Inter Process Communication (IPC) Mechanisms (for Uni- and Multi- Processor Configurations)"
+HOMEPAGE = "https://git.ti.com/ipc/pages/Home"
+LICENSE = "BSD"
+
+PV = "3_10_00_08"
+PR = "r0"
+
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/ipc-linux.mak;beginline=1;endline=30;md5=f2518e421e230f06fe6d449718d02edc"
+
+PLATFORM_omap5-evm = "omap54xx_smp"
+PLATFORM_dra7xx-evm = "dra7xx"
+
+inherit autotools pkgconfig
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.ti.com/ipc/ipcdev.git;protocol=git \
+           file://0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch \
+           "
+SRCREV = "b11251f705f84f32740cd288afe9281e653bd8eb"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
+
+do_configure() {
+	sed -i -e "s#^KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR ?=.*#KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR = ${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}#" ${S}/products.mak	
+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR = ${TOOLCHAIN_PATH}#" ${S}/products.mak
+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME = arm-linux-gnueabihf#" ${S}/products.mak
+	sed -i -e "s#^PLATFORM ?=.*#PLATFORM = ${PLATFORM}#" ${S}/products.mak
+	sed -i -e "s#^PREFIX ?=.*#PREFIX = /usr#" ${S}/products.mak
+
+	make -f ${S}/ipc-linux.mak config
+}
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Maupin, Chase]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-
>bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Hingolikar, Mrinmayee
>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:06 AM
>To: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>Subject: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between
>multiple processors

I would recommend using --numbered in your patches and creating them as a series to make it easier to determine the order in which they should be applied.  For example this patch should come before you other patch for libdce.

>
>Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>---
> ...nstallation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch |   38
>++++++++++++++++++++
> recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb                |   30
>++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-
>prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
> create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
>
>diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-
>feature-to-products.ma.patch b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-
>installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
>new file mode 100644
>index 0000000..7d5ff94
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-
>to-products.ma.patch
>@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
>+From 26d09063063593aec760151393226b96bc7ab9f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>2001
>+From: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>+Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:01:15 +0530
>+Subject: [PATCH] ipc: Added installation prefix feature to
>products.mak

Can this be driven back into the IPC team to add to their makefile?

>+
>+Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>+---
>+ ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
>+ products.mak  |    1 +
>+ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>+
>+diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
>+index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
>+--- a/ipc-linux.mak
>++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
>+@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
>+ config:
>+ 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
>+ 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
>++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
>+             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
>+             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
>+             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \

This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe should stage appropriately.

I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to make sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning recipes between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up into a recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of meta-arago list.

Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration and building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful to help in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.

>+diff --git a/products.mak b/products.mak
>+index e418d2f..4578a1e 100644
>+--- a/products.mak
>++++ b/products.mak
>+@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ PLATFORM ?=
>+ TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?= arm-none-linux-gnueabi
>+ TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR ?= $(DEPOT)/_your_arm_code_gen_install_
>+ TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX ?=
>$(TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR)/bin/$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME)-
>++PREFIX ?= /usr/local
>+
>+ # Optional: Path to Linux Kernel - needed to build the MmRpc
>user libraries
>+ # (for devices that support it)
>+--
>+1.7.9.5
>+
>diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb b/recipes-
>ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
>new file mode 100644
>index 0000000..645061d
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
>@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>+DESCRIPTION = "TI Inter Process Communication (IPC) Mechanisms
>(for Uni- and Multi- Processor Configurations)"
>+HOMEPAGE = "https://git.ti.com/ipc/pages/Home"
>+LICENSE = "BSD"
>+
>+PV = "3_10_00_08"

I don't think you want to do this.  Why not leave the version . separated?

>+PR = "r0"
>+
>+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/ipc-
>linux.mak;beginline=1;endline=30;md5=f2518e421e230f06fe6d449718d02
>edc"
>+
>+PLATFORM_omap5-evm = "omap54xx_smp"
>+PLATFORM_dra7xx-evm = "dra7xx"
>+
>+inherit autotools pkgconfig
>+
>+SRC_URI = "git://git.ti.com/ipc/ipcdev.git;protocol=git \
>+           file://0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-
>products.ma.patch \
>+           "
>+SRCREV = "b11251f705f84f32740cd288afe9281e653bd8eb"

Any need for a BRANCH setting?

>+
>+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>+
>+do_configure() {
>+	sed -i -e "s#^KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR ?=.*#KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR =
>${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}#" ${S}/products.mak
>+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR
>?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR = ${TOOLCHAIN_PATH}#" ${S}/products.mak
>+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME =
>arm-linux-gnueabihf#" ${S}/products.mak
>+	sed -i -e "s#^PLATFORM ?=.*#PLATFORM = ${PLATFORM}#"
>${S}/products.mak
>+	sed -i -e "s#^PREFIX ?=.*#PREFIX = /usr#" ${S}/products.mak

Is there a way to drive this back into the IPC team to allow you to pass these values and have them picked up from the command line, rather than using a lot of sed commands?  History has shown in the past that this gets ugly to maintain.

>+
>+	make -f ${S}/ipc-linux.mak config
>+}
>--
>1.7.9.5
>
>_______________________________________________
>meta-ti mailing list
>meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

See my comments below.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:02:30PM +0000, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-
> >bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Hingolikar, Mrinmayee
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:06 AM
> >To: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
> >Subject: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between
> >multiple processors
> 
> I would recommend using --numbered in your patches and creating them as a 
> series to make it easier to determine the order in which they should be 
> applied.  For example this patch should come before you other patch for 
> libdce.

If you extract more than one patch with git-format-patch, then --numbered is 
used by default.


> >Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> >---
> > ...nstallation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch |   38
> >++++++++++++++++++++
> > recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb                |   30
> >++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-
> >prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
> > create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
> >
> >diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-
> >feature-to-products.ma.patch b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-
> >installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
> >new file mode 100644
> >index 0000000..7d5ff94
> >--- /dev/null
> >+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-
> >to-products.ma.patch
> >@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> >+From 26d09063063593aec760151393226b96bc7ab9f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> >2001
> >+From: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> >+Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:01:15 +0530
> >+Subject: [PATCH] ipc: Added installation prefix feature to
> >products.mak
> 
> Can this be driven back into the IPC team to add to their makefile?
> 
> >+
> >+Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> >+---
> >+ ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
> >+ products.mak  |    1 +
> >+ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >+
> >+diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
> >+index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
> >+--- a/ipc-linux.mak
> >++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
> >+@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
> >+ config:
> >+ 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
> >+ 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
> >++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
> >+             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
> >+             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
> >+             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
> 
> This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past 
> something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying 
> that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to 
> STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe should stage 
> appropriately.
> 
> I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to make 
> sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some 
> discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning recipes 
> between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up into a 
> recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on 
> Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of 
> meta-arago list.
> 
> Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration and 
> building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful to help 
> in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.

Nice catch. The first question - does it depend and require cmem?


> >+diff --git a/products.mak b/products.mak
> >+index e418d2f..4578a1e 100644
> >+--- a/products.mak
> >++++ b/products.mak
> >+@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ PLATFORM ?=
> >+ TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?= arm-none-linux-gnueabi
> >+ TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR ?= $(DEPOT)/_your_arm_code_gen_install_
> >+ TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX ?=
> >$(TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR)/bin/$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME)-
> >++PREFIX ?= /usr/local
> >+
> >+ # Optional: Path to Linux Kernel - needed to build the MmRpc
> >user libraries
> >+ # (for devices that support it)
> >+--
> >+1.7.9.5
> >+
> >diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb b/recipes-
> >ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
> >new file mode 100644
> >index 0000000..645061d
> >--- /dev/null
> >+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
> >@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> >+DESCRIPTION = "TI Inter Process Communication (IPC) Mechanisms
> >(for Uni- and Multi- Processor Configurations)"
> >+HOMEPAGE = "https://git.ti.com/ipc/pages/Home"
> >+LICENSE = "BSD"
> >+
> >+PV = "3_10_00_08"
> 
> I don't think you want to do this.  Why not leave the version . separated?

This is actually more critical than that. Don't use underscores in the 
recipe/package version! If the component requires undersocred version, pass it 
separately.


> >+PR = "r0"
> >+
> >+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/ipc-
> >linux.mak;beginline=1;endline=30;md5=f2518e421e230f06fe6d449718d02
> >edc"
> >+
> >+PLATFORM_omap5-evm = "omap54xx_smp"
> >+PLATFORM_dra7xx-evm = "dra7xx"
> >+
> >+inherit autotools pkgconfig
> >+
> >+SRC_URI = "git://git.ti.com/ipc/ipcdev.git;protocol=git \
> >+           file://0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-
> >products.ma.patch \
> >+           "
> >+SRCREV = "b11251f705f84f32740cd288afe9281e653bd8eb"
> 
> Any need for a BRANCH setting?

Well, it's not a required variables - as a matter of fact, I invented it 
years ago and since it's useful in many cases, it just stuck around... :)


> >+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> >+
> >+do_configure() {
> >+	sed -i -e "s#^KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR ?=.*#KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR =
> >${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}#" ${S}/products.mak
> >+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR
> >?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR = ${TOOLCHAIN_PATH}#" ${S}/products.mak
> >+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME =
> >arm-linux-gnueabihf#" ${S}/products.mak
> >+	sed -i -e "s#^PLATFORM ?=.*#PLATFORM = ${PLATFORM}#"
> >${S}/products.mak
> >+	sed -i -e "s#^PREFIX ?=.*#PREFIX = /usr#" ${S}/products.mak
> 
> Is there a way to drive this back into the IPC team to allow you to pass 
> these values and have them picked up from the command line, rather than 
> using a lot of sed commands?  History has shown in the past that this gets 
> ugly to maintain.

From what I can see, the above variables are being assigned conditionally in 
the Makefile (uses ?=), meaning that IPC team is already provinding a way to 
cleanly pass those variables from outside. So, there's no need to sed those 
vars! You are meant to pass them on the command line to oe_runmake...

-- 
Denys

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

And one more comment I missed originally - please drop the ti- prefix in 
recipes.

BTW, Multi-Core guys had previously submitted the new ipc recipe as well and 
received the same exact comment. Haven't heard from them since...


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:18:43AM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> See my comments below.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:02:30PM +0000, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-
> > >bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Hingolikar, Mrinmayee
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:06 AM
> > >To: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
> > >Subject: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between
> > >multiple processors
> > 
> > I would recommend using --numbered in your patches and creating them as a 
> > series to make it easier to determine the order in which they should be 
> > applied.  For example this patch should come before you other patch for 
> > libdce.
> 
> If you extract more than one patch with git-format-patch, then --numbered is 
> used by default.
> 
> 
> > >Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> > >---
> > > ...nstallation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch |   38
> > >++++++++++++++++++++
> > > recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb                |   30
> > >++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-
> > >prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
> > > create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
> > >
> > >diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-
> > >feature-to-products.ma.patch b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-
> > >installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
> > >new file mode 100644
> > >index 0000000..7d5ff94
> > >--- /dev/null
> > >+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-
> > >to-products.ma.patch
> > >@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> > >+From 26d09063063593aec760151393226b96bc7ab9f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > >2001
> > >+From: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> > >+Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:01:15 +0530
> > >+Subject: [PATCH] ipc: Added installation prefix feature to
> > >products.mak
> > 
> > Can this be driven back into the IPC team to add to their makefile?
> > 
> > >+
> > >+Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> > >+---
> > >+ ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
> > >+ products.mak  |    1 +
> > >+ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >+
> > >+diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
> > >+index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
> > >+--- a/ipc-linux.mak
> > >++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
> > >+@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
> > >+ config:
> > >+ 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
> > >+ 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
> > >++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
> > >+             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
> > >+             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
> > >+             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
> > 
> > This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past 
> > something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying 
> > that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to 
> > STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe should stage 
> > appropriately.
> > 
> > I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to make 
> > sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some 
> > discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning recipes 
> > between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up into a 
> > recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on 
> > Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of 
> > meta-arago list.
> > 
> > Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration and 
> > building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful to help 
> > in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.
> 
> Nice catch. The first question - does it depend and require cmem?
> 
> 
> > >+diff --git a/products.mak b/products.mak
> > >+index e418d2f..4578a1e 100644
> > >+--- a/products.mak
> > >++++ b/products.mak
> > >+@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ PLATFORM ?=
> > >+ TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?= arm-none-linux-gnueabi
> > >+ TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR ?= $(DEPOT)/_your_arm_code_gen_install_
> > >+ TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX ?=
> > >$(TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR)/bin/$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME)-
> > >++PREFIX ?= /usr/local
> > >+
> > >+ # Optional: Path to Linux Kernel - needed to build the MmRpc
> > >user libraries
> > >+ # (for devices that support it)
> > >+--
> > >+1.7.9.5
> > >+
> > >diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb b/recipes-
> > >ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
> > >new file mode 100644
> > >index 0000000..645061d
> > >--- /dev/null
> > >+++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
> > >@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> > >+DESCRIPTION = "TI Inter Process Communication (IPC) Mechanisms
> > >(for Uni- and Multi- Processor Configurations)"
> > >+HOMEPAGE = "https://git.ti.com/ipc/pages/Home"
> > >+LICENSE = "BSD"
> > >+
> > >+PV = "3_10_00_08"
> > 
> > I don't think you want to do this.  Why not leave the version . separated?
> 
> This is actually more critical than that. Don't use underscores in the 
> recipe/package version! If the component requires undersocred version, pass it 
> separately.
> 
> 
> > >+PR = "r0"
> > >+
> > >+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/ipc-
> > >linux.mak;beginline=1;endline=30;md5=f2518e421e230f06fe6d449718d02
> > >edc"
> > >+
> > >+PLATFORM_omap5-evm = "omap54xx_smp"
> > >+PLATFORM_dra7xx-evm = "dra7xx"
> > >+
> > >+inherit autotools pkgconfig
> > >+
> > >+SRC_URI = "git://git.ti.com/ipc/ipcdev.git;protocol=git \
> > >+           file://0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-
> > >products.ma.patch \
> > >+           "
> > >+SRCREV = "b11251f705f84f32740cd288afe9281e653bd8eb"
> > 
> > Any need for a BRANCH setting?
> 
> Well, it's not a required variables - as a matter of fact, I invented it 
> years ago and since it's useful in many cases, it just stuck around... :)
> 
> 
> > >+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
> > >+
> > >+do_configure() {
> > >+	sed -i -e "s#^KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR ?=.*#KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR =
> > >${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}#" ${S}/products.mak
> > >+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR
> > >?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR = ${TOOLCHAIN_PATH}#" ${S}/products.mak
> > >+	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME =
> > >arm-linux-gnueabihf#" ${S}/products.mak
> > >+	sed -i -e "s#^PLATFORM ?=.*#PLATFORM = ${PLATFORM}#"
> > >${S}/products.mak
> > >+	sed -i -e "s#^PREFIX ?=.*#PREFIX = /usr#" ${S}/products.mak
> > 
> > Is there a way to drive this back into the IPC team to allow you to pass 
> > these values and have them picked up from the command line, rather than 
> > using a lot of sed commands?  History has shown in the past that this gets 
> > ugly to maintain.
> 
> From what I can see, the above variables are being assigned conditionally in 
> the Makefile (uses ?=), meaning that IPC team is already provinding a way to 
> cleanly pass those variables from outside. So, there's no need to sed those 
> vars! You are meant to pass them on the command line to oe_runmake...
> 
> -- 
> Denys
> _______________________________________________
> meta-ti mailing list
> meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:38:55PM -0500, Ring, Chris wrote:
> Below...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dmytriyenko, Denys
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:19 AM
> > To: Maupin, Chase
> > Cc: Hingolikar, Mrinmayee; meta-ti@yoctoproject.org; Ring, Chris; Nelson,
> > Sam
> > Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple
> > processors
> > 
> > See my comments below.
> > 
> > <chop>
> > 
> > > >+
> > > >+Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> > > >+---
> > > >+ ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
> > > >+ products.mak  |    1 +
> > > >+ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >+
> > > >+diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
> > > >+index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
> > > >+--- a/ipc-linux.mak
> > > >++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
> > > >+@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
> > > >+ config:
> > > >+ 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
> > > >+ 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
> > > >++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
> > > >+             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
> > > >+             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
> > > >+             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
> > >
> > > This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past
> > > something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying
> > > that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to
> > > STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe should stage
> > > appropriately.
> > >
> > > I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to
> > make
> > > sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some
> > > discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning
> > recipes
> > > between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up
> > into a
> > > recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on
> > > Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of
> > > meta-arago list.
> > >
> > > Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration
> > and
> > > building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful to
> > help
> > > in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.
> > 
> > Nice catch. The first question - does it depend and require cmem?
> 
> The IPC build, including required variables, is described here:
>     http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/IPC_Install_Guide_Linux
> 
> CMEM_INSTALL_DIR is only required if you want to build the examples which 
> leverage CMEM.  It shouldn't be needed if you only want to build the IPC 
> libraries.

Thanks, Chris!

Sam, Mrinmayee, can you comment on whether you need IPC examples and/or pass 
CMEM_INSTALL_DIR. Thanks.

-- 
Denys

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Nelson, Sam]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmytriyenko, Denys
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:41 PM
> To: Ring, Chris
> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Hingolikar, Mrinmayee; meta-ti@yoctoproject.org;
> Nelson, Sam
> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple
> processors
> 
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:38:55PM -0500, Ring, Chris wrote:
> > Below...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dmytriyenko, Denys
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:19 AM
> > > To: Maupin, Chase
> > > Cc: Hingolikar, Mrinmayee; meta-ti@yoctoproject.org; Ring, Chris;
> Nelson,
> > > Sam
> > > Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between
> multiple
> > > processors
> > >
> > > See my comments below.
> > >
> > > <chop>
> > >
> > > > >+
> > > > >+Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
> > > > >+---
> > > > >+ ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
> > > > >+ products.mak  |    1 +
> > > > >+ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >+
> > > > >+diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
> > > > >+index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
> > > > >+--- a/ipc-linux.mak
> > > > >++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
> > > > >+@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
> > > > >+ config:
> > > > >+ 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
> > > > >+ 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
> > > > >++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
> > > > >+             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
> > > > >+             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
> > > > >+             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
> > > >
> > > > This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past
> > > > something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying
> > > > that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to
> > > > STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe
> should stage
> > > > appropriately.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to
> > > make
> > > > sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some
> > > > discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning
> > > recipes
> > > > between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up
> > > into a
> > > > recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on
> > > > Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of
> > > > meta-arago list.
> > > >
> > > > Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration
> > > and
> > > > building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful
> to
> > > help
> > > > in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.
> > >
> > > Nice catch. The first question - does it depend and require cmem?
> >
> > The IPC build, including required variables, is described here:
> >     http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/IPC_Install_Guide_Linux
> >
> > CMEM_INSTALL_DIR is only required if you want to build the examples
> which
> > leverage CMEM.  It shouldn't be needed if you only want to build the IPC
> > libraries.
> 
> Thanks, Chris!
> 
> Sam, Mrinmayee, can you comment on whether you need IPC examples
> and/or pass
> CMEM_INSTALL_DIR. Thanks.
[Sam] My general thought on this, is that  the test or examples should go into a separate recipe may be ipc-test or ipc-examples. Which in turn can depend on multiple components.  This I guess need changes to build the examples separately.  
> 
> --
> Denys

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Mrinmayee Hingolikar]

On 11/22/2013 5:10 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:38:55PM -0500, Ring, Chris wrote:
>> Below...
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dmytriyenko, Denys
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:19 AM
>>> To: Maupin, Chase
>>> Cc: Hingolikar, Mrinmayee; meta-ti@yoctoproject.org; Ring, Chris; Nelson,
>>> Sam
>>> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple
>>> processors
>>>
>>> See my comments below.
>>>
>>> <chop>
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>>>>> +---
>>>>> + ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
>>>>> + products.mak  |    1 +
>>>>> + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
>>>>> +index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
>>>>> +--- a/ipc-linux.mak
>>>>> ++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
>>>>> +@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
>>>>> + config:
>>>>> + 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
>>>>> + 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
>>>>> ++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
>>>>> +             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
>>>>> +             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
>>>>> +             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
>>>> This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past
>>>> something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying
>>>> that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to
>>>> STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe should stage
>>>> appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to
>>> make
>>>> sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some
>>>> discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning
>>> recipes
>>>> between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up
>>> into a
>>>> recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on
>>>> Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of
>>>> meta-arago list.
>>>>
>>>> Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration
>>> and
>>>> building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful to
>>> help
>>>> in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.
>>> Nice catch. The first question - does it depend and require cmem?
>> The IPC build, including required variables, is described here:
>>     http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/IPC_Install_Guide_Linux
>>
>> CMEM_INSTALL_DIR is only required if you want to build the examples which 
>> leverage CMEM.  It shouldn't be needed if you only want to build the IPC 
>> libraries.
> Thanks, Chris!
>
> Sam, Mrinmayee, can you comment on whether you need IPC examples and/or pass 
> CMEM_INSTALL_DIR. Thanks.
We do not need o build the IPC examples at this point. Hence we are not
passing the CMEM_INSTALL_DIR variable

>


-- 
Regards,
Mrinmayee

Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors

[Mrinmayee Hingolikar]

On 11/20/2013 6:32 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meta-ti-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-ti-
>> bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Hingolikar, Mrinmayee
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:06 AM
>> To: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: [meta-ti] [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between
>> multiple processors
> I would recommend using --numbered in your patches and creating them as a series to make it easier to determine the order in which they should be applied.  For example this patch should come before you other patch for libdce.
Sure, I will take care of this.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>> ---
>> ...nstallation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch |   38
>> ++++++++++++++++++++
>> recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb                |   30
>> ++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-
>> prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
>> create mode 100644 recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
>>
>> diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-
>> feature-to-products.ma.patch b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-
>> installation-prefix-feature-to-products.ma.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..7d5ff94
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-
>> to-products.ma.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
>> +From 26d09063063593aec760151393226b96bc7ab9f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>> 2001
>> +From: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>> +Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:01:15 +0530
>> +Subject: [PATCH] ipc: Added installation prefix feature to
>> products.mak
> Can this be driven back into the IPC team to add to their makefile?
>
>> +
>> +Signed-off-by: Mrinmayee Hingolikar <mrinmayee@ti.com>
>> +---
>> + ipc-linux.mak |    1 +
>> + products.mak  |    1 +
>> + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> +
>> +diff --git a/ipc-linux.mak b/ipc-linux.mak
>> +index 788a5a2..01579e4 100644
>> +--- a/ipc-linux.mak
>> ++++ b/ipc-linux.mak
>> +@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ include products.mak
>> + config:
>> + 	@echo "Configuring Linux Ipc ..."
>> + 	./configure --host=$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME) \
>> ++            --prefix=$(PREFIX) \
>> +             CC=$(TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX)gcc \
>> +             PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) \
>> +             CMEM_INSTALL_DIR=$(CMEM_INSTALL_DIR) \
> This line makes me think there is a dependency missing.  In the past something like ti-paths.inc would pass this value along.  I'm not saying that should be replicated as is, but likely you want to se this to STAGING_DIR_TARGET or something similar and the cmem recipe should stage appropriately.
>
> I think it would be good if you walked through your software stack to make sure you are sending your patches in order.  Likewise, there was some discussion with Sam about cmem recipes and basically about aligning recipes between your groups.  I thin the approach of breaking linux-utils up into a recipe per component is going to be the cleanest approach.  I'll ping on Sam's patches as well to get an update posted to meta-ti instead of meta-arago list.
>
> Any pointers you can provide to documentation about the configuration and building of these components you are pushing up would also be useful to help in reviewing so we can understand what you are trying to accomplish.
>
>> +diff --git a/products.mak b/products.mak
>> +index e418d2f..4578a1e 100644
>> +--- a/products.mak
>> ++++ b/products.mak
>> +@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ PLATFORM ?=
>> + TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?= arm-none-linux-gnueabi
>> + TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR ?= $(DEPOT)/_your_arm_code_gen_install_
>> + TOOLCHAIN_PREFIX ?=
>> $(TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR)/bin/$(TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME)-
>> ++PREFIX ?= /usr/local
>> +
>> + # Optional: Path to Linux Kernel - needed to build the MmRpc
>> user libraries
>> + # (for devices that support it)
>> +--
>> +1.7.9.5
>> +
>> diff --git a/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb b/recipes-
>> ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..645061d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/recipes-ti/ipc/ti-ipc_3.10.00.08.bb
>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>> +DESCRIPTION = "TI Inter Process Communication (IPC) Mechanisms
>> (for Uni- and Multi- Processor Configurations)"
>> +HOMEPAGE = "https://git.ti.com/ipc/pages/Home"
>> +LICENSE = "BSD"
>> +
>> +PV = "3_10_00_08"
> I don't think you want to do this.  Why not leave the version . separated?
I'll skip the PV
>
>> +PR = "r0"
>> +
>> +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://${S}/ipc-
>> linux.mak;beginline=1;endline=30;md5=f2518e421e230f06fe6d449718d02
>> edc"
>> +
>> +PLATFORM_omap5-evm = "omap54xx_smp"
>> +PLATFORM_dra7xx-evm = "dra7xx"
>> +
>> +inherit autotools pkgconfig
>> +
>> +SRC_URI = "git://git.ti.com/ipc/ipcdev.git;protocol=git \
>> +           file://0001-ipc-Added-installation-prefix-feature-to-
>> products.ma.patch \
>> +           "
>> +SRCREV = "b11251f705f84f32740cd288afe9281e653bd8eb"
> Any need for a BRANCH setting?
>
>> +
>> +S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>> +
>> +do_configure() {
>> +	sed -i -e "s#^KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR ?=.*#KERNEL_INSTALL_DIR =
>> ${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}#" ${S}/products.mak
>> +	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR
>> ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_INSTALL_DIR = ${TOOLCHAIN_PATH}#" ${S}/products.mak
>> +	sed -i -e "s#^TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME ?=.*#TOOLCHAIN_LONGNAME =
>> arm-linux-gnueabihf#" ${S}/products.mak
>> +	sed -i -e "s#^PLATFORM ?=.*#PLATFORM = ${PLATFORM}#"
>> ${S}/products.mak
>> +	sed -i -e "s#^PREFIX ?=.*#PREFIX = /usr#" ${S}/products.mak
> Is there a way to drive this back into the IPC team to allow you to pass these values and have them picked up from the command line, rather than using a lot of sed commands?  History has shown in the past that this gets ugly to maintain.
I tried passing these options via command line using make, and that
seems to work. :) So I will remove the sed commands
>
>> +
>> +	make -f ${S}/ipc-linux.mak config
>> +}
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> meta-ti mailing list
>> meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti


-- 
Regards,
Mrinmayee