Re: [meta-arm] [PATCH 4/6] arm: trusted-firmware-m: Add recipe

["Denys Dmytriyenko" <denis@denix.org>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 08:59:56AM +0000, Gabor Abonyi wrote:
> If I move TF-M to meta-arm-bsp, then meta-arm-bsp would have the dependency on arm-toolchain. Would that be better?
> (I do not understand why meta-arm depending on arm-toolchain is a bad thing, explanations are welcome :) )

meta-arm is meant to be a central place for shared components to be used by 
other BSPs. Kind of a community layer, if you like. And arm-toolchain is kind 
of a special layer and may not be desirable by all BSPs, so that would reduce 
overall usefulness of meta-arm layer. Each individual BSP (and meta-arm-bsp is 
one of those) is free to depend on arm-toolchain layer directly, if needed.

-- 
Denys


> I experimented with BBFILES_DYNAMIC, but it is very unhelpful from end-user perspective (if arm-toolchain is not in bblayers):
> "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'trusted-firmware-m'. Close matches:
>   trusted-firmware-a"
> Compared to the current one:
> "ERROR: Layer 'meta-arm' depends on layer 'arm-toolchain', but this layer is not enabled in your configuration"
> 
> I am open to any suggestions.
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org <meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf Of Joshua Watt via lists.yoctoproject.org
> Sent: 2020. június 22., hétfő 20:04
> To: Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>; Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>
> Cc: Gabor Abonyi <Gabor.Abonyi@arm.com>; meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [meta-arm] [PATCH 4/6] arm: trusted-firmware-m: Add recipe
> 
> 
> On 6/22/20 12:36 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:26:54PM -0400, Jon Mason wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:49:36PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:13:59AM +0200, Gabor Abonyi wrote:
> >>>> Adds a recipe to pull down the trusted-firmware-m repository and 
> >>>> the ones it depends on. The recipe can either use 
> >>>> gcc-arm-none-eabi-native or armcompiler-native Clang toolchain to compile the firmware.
> >>>>
> >>>> Change-Id: I37a4ba38982b5b1d387eccbb26bb5c79bddab0f7
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gabor Abonyi <gabor.abonyi@arm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>   meta-arm/conf/layer.conf                      |   1 +
> >>>>   .../trusted-firmware-m/trusted-firmware-m.inc | 118 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>   .../trusted-firmware-m_1.0.bb                 |  25 ++++
> >>>>   3 files changed, 144 insertions(+)
> >>>>   create mode 100644 meta-arm/recipes-bsp/trusted-firmware-m/trusted-firmware-m.inc
> >>>>   create mode 100644 
> >>>> meta-arm/recipes-bsp/trusted-firmware-m/trusted-firmware-m_1.0.bb
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/meta-arm/conf/layer.conf b/meta-arm/conf/layer.conf 
> >>>> index 3341972..10a7951 100644
> >>>> --- a/meta-arm/conf/layer.conf
> >>>> +++ b/meta-arm/conf/layer.conf
> >>>> @@ -11,5 +11,6 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_meta-arm = "6"
> >>>>   
> >>>>   LAYERDEPENDS_meta-arm = " \
> >>>>       core \
> >>>> +    arm-toolchain \
> >>> This may be problematic...
> >> Yes, this was flagged as a potential problem internally.  
> >> Fortunately, meta-arm-toolchain currently has no other layer 
> >> dependencies.  So, it shouldn't hurt too much.  Ccing JPEW directly 
> >> on this, since his insight has been helpful in the past.
> >>
> >> TF-M requires Arm's LLVM/Clang based toolchain to compile, which is 
> >> the second patch of this series.
> > One of the options is to move TF-M to meta-arm-bsp...
> 
> Ya, I wouldn't want to mandate meta-arm-toolchain here. You could either move it to meta-arm-bsp as Denys suggested or possibly use BBFILES_DYNAMIC?
> 
> 
> >