From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout4.zoneedit.com (mailout4.zoneedit.com [64.68.198.64]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.3510.1593627057418852917 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:10:57 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=none, err=permanent DNS error (domain: denix.org, ip: 64.68.198.64, mailfrom: denis@denix.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout4.zoneedit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAB140BA1; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout4.zoneedit.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmo14-pco.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eZD6TV3TY5uU; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.denix.org (pool-100-15-86-127.washdc.fios.verizon.net [100.15.86.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout4.zoneedit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CA5F409A6; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 18:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3E8EA173D5E; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:10:55 -0400 From: "Denys Dmytriyenko" To: Diego Sueiro Cc: meta-arm@lists.yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [meta-arm] [PATCH 4/6] arm: trusted-firmware-m: Add recipe Message-ID: <20200701181055.GU17660@denix.org> References: <20200622194802.GI17660@denix.org> <31688.1592896016698778890@lists.yoctoproject.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <31688.1592896016698778890@lists.yoctoproject.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:06:56AM -0700, Diego Sueiro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:48 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 19:44, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > > Looks like it's time to start that multiconfig experiment where we > > > > > just build another cross compiler inside Yocto. > > > > > > > > You can check meta-ti - our K3 platforms have Aarch64 Cortex-A cores and > > Armv7 > > > > Cortex-R cores, so meta-ti now uses multiconfig to build 2 cross compilers > > and > > > > use those for corresponding components. TF-M sounds like a perfect use > > case > > > > for that, as well. > > > > > > Awesome for doing it already. Does it work well? > > > > Works quite well, as long as you can express relations between multiconfigs > > with build-time dependency and hand-off via DEPLOY_DIR. Works quite well if > > you only need to do firmwares or bootloaders for those extra cores. You can > > even have those packaged into a partition in your wic image. > > > > But more complex use cases, which would require run-time dependencies, like > > packaging an SDK with both cross-compilers and sysroots, aren't supported yet. > > > > -- > > Denys > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:48 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:29:02PM +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 19:44, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > > Looks like it's time to start that multiconfig experiment where we > > > > > just build another cross compiler inside Yocto. > > > > > > > > You can check meta-ti - our K3 platforms have Aarch64 Cortex-A cores and > > Armv7 > > > > Cortex-R cores, so meta-ti now uses multiconfig to build 2 cross compilers > > and > > > > use those for corresponding components. TF-M sounds like a perfect use > > case > > > > for that, as well. > > > > > > Awesome for doing it already. Does it work well? > > > > Works quite well, as long as you can express relations between multiconfigs > > with build-time dependency and hand-off via DEPLOY_DIR. Works quite well if > > you only need to do firmwares or bootloaders for those extra cores. You can > > even have those packaged into a partition in your wic image. > > > > But more complex use cases, which would require run-time dependencies, like > > packaging an SDK with both cross-compilers and sysroots, aren't supported yet. > > > > -- > > Denys > > > > I'm struggling to understand what multiconfig and building the toolchain > from source will help on removing the meta-arm dependency on > meta-arm-toolchain. > Can you guys elaborate better? I don't believe that was directly related. I'm guessing Ross was wondering if building a baremetal toolchain from source will reduce dependencies and that is indeed possible with multiconfig. -- Denys > The ideal place for trusted-firmware-[a|m] recipes is meta-arm layer since > they are generic and supposed to be specialized/customized/extended/tweaked > by BSP layers. > > Using BBFILES_DYNAMIC is a feasible possibility (despite adding at least > more two directory levels) if adding meta-arm-toolchain as default > dependency on meta-arm will cause so much pain. >