Re: [meta-arm] [PATCH] ffa-debugfs-mod: Do not build for TI SOCs

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 07:48:20AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:06 AM Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 01, 2022 at 11:47:31AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > The module can not be compiled without patching kernel 5.10
> > > This helps meta-ti to live in multi-BSP envs
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  meta-arm/recipes-kernel/ffa-debugfs/ffa-debugfs-mod_2.1.0.bb | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta-arm/recipes-kernel/ffa-debugfs/ffa-debugfs-mod_2.1.0.bb b/meta-arm/recipes-kernel/ffa-debugfs/ffa-debugfs-mod_2.1.0.bb
> > > index 4051c34..a4dd38c 100644
> > > --- a/meta-arm/recipes-kernel/ffa-debugfs/ffa-debugfs-mod_2.1.0.bb
> > > +++ b/meta-arm/recipes-kernel/ffa-debugfs/ffa-debugfs-mod_2.1.0.bb
> > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ do_install:append() {
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  COMPATIBLE_HOST = "(arm|aarch64).*-linux"
> > > +COMPATIBLE_HOST:ti-soc = "null"
> >
> > Shouldn't this live in meta-ti?
> 
> yeah perhaps better there.

If the kernel requires patching to use this module from meta-arm, shouldn't 
meta-arm set a bit stricter COMPATIBLE_HOST? How are other BSPs supposed to 
work along with meta-arm?


> > >  # Kernel modules currently RDEPEND on the kernel, which is troublesome when you want to put a
> > >  # kernel module into a initramfs without pulling the kernel into the initramfs, which would be
> > > --
> > > 2.36.0
> > >
> > >

-- 
Regards,
Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>
PGP: 0x420902729A92C964 - https://denix.org/0x420902729A92C964
Fingerprint: 25FC E4A5 8A72 2F69 1186  6D76 4209 0272 9A92 C964