From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com (devils.ext.ti.com [198.47.26.153]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5401DE00546 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:46:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by devils.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rAKLkpfs006426 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:46:51 -0600 Received: from DLEE71.ent.ti.com (dlee71.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.114]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAKLkpH5030874 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:46:51 -0600 Received: from dlep33.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.75) by DLEE71.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:46:51 -0600 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dlep33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAKLko4T027471; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:46:51 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:46:50 -0500 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: "Maupin, Chase" Message-ID: <20131120214650.GG29952@edge> References: <20131120110538.GA22903@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1015983FD3F@DLEE11.ent.ti.com> <20131120151843.GB29952@edge> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20131120151843.GB29952@edge> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" , "Ring, Chris" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc: IPC for communication between multiple processors X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:46:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline 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 > > >--- > > > ...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 > > >+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 > > >+--- > > >+ 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