Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Since I will need to test multiple boards,
I decided to write some scripts which I will
check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2

I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands

<SOF>
build_board	sam9263dfc	x11-gpe-image
build_board	sam9g45ek	opie-image
build_board	sam9g10df	x11-gpe-image
build_board	sam9g20dfc	console-image
build_board	sam9260dfc	console-image
build_board	sam9261df	x11-image
build_board	sam9xedfc	console-image
<EOF>

The script assumes the existance of a "build-<board>"
directory with a configuration file in "build-<board>/conf".
"build-<board>/conf/local.conf" is a link to
"build-<board>/conf/<board>.conf"

I have also generated a script "scripts/make-local.conf.sh"
to automatically generate the "build-<board>" directory
with updates taken from definitions in "environment.sh"
in the topdirectory

<SOF>
#/bin/sh
# Example environment.sh

DOWNLOAD=/usr/local/install/downloads
MAKEJOBS=4
THREADS=4
KERNEL=2.6.30
<EOF>

You call
openembedded/scripts/make-local.conf.sh at91sam9263ek
to create the build-at91sam9263ek directory.

The MAKEALL script will prepare this directory
for full or incremental build and create
the symbolic link "build" before bitbake starts

-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
> I decided to write some scripts which I will
> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>
> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>
> <SOF>
> build_board	sam9263dfc	x11-gpe-image
> build_board	sam9g45ek	opie-image
> build_board	sam9g10df	x11-gpe-image
> build_board	sam9g20dfc	console-image
> build_board	sam9260dfc	console-image
> build_board	sam9261df	x11-image
> build_board	sam9xedfc	console-image
> <EOF>

You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?

regards,

Koen

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Koen Kooi skrev:
> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>
>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>
>> <SOF>
>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>> <EOF>
> 
> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
> 

Didn't try that.
I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,
Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?


> regards,
> 
> Koen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 12:07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Koen Kooi skrev:
>> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>>
>>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>>
>>> <SOF>
>>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>>> <EOF>
>>
>> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
>>
>
> Didn't try that.
> I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,

Unless you poked at the gcc recipes, no, it won't get rebuilt.

> Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?

if you use rootfs_ipk.bbclass, yes.

Note that the official angstrom buildguide has mentioned that for years: 
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom

regards,

Koen

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Koen Kooi skrev:
> On 13-08-09 12:07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>>>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>>>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>>>
>>>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>>>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>>>
>>>> <SOF>
>>>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>>>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>>>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>>>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>>>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>>>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>>>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>>>> <EOF>
>>>
>>> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
>>>
>>
>> Didn't try that.
>> I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,
> 
> Unless you poked at the gcc recipes, no, it won't get rebuilt.
> 
>> Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?
> 
> if you use rootfs_ipk.bbclass, yes.
> 
> Note that the official angstrom buildguide has mentioned that for years:
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
> 

Thanks for helping out, but it does not work as expected.

I first create a local.conf for the at91sam9261df
and bitbake x11-image.
Then I do "MACHINE=at91sam9g20dfc bitbake console-image".
A console-image is built,but for the at91sam9261df,
which is stored in "tmp/deploy/glibc/images/at91sam9261df"

The bitbake does not generate u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
for the at91sam9260dfc


I believe that most at91 chips can use the same file system,
so it makes sense to do it this way anyway.

I assume that the at91sam9261df setup is used for the console-image.
There could be a few cases where this is ineffient or simply wrong.




> regards,
> 
> Koen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 14:10, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Koen Kooi skrev:
>> On 13-08-09 12:07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>>> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>>>>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>>>>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>>>>
>>>>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>>>>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>>>>
>>>>> <SOF>
>>>>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>>>>> <EOF>
>>>>
>>>> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't try that.
>>> I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,
>>
>> Unless you poked at the gcc recipes, no, it won't get rebuilt.
>>
>>> Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?
>>
>> if you use rootfs_ipk.bbclass, yes.
>>
>> Note that the official angstrom buildguide has mentioned that for years:
>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
>>
>
> Thanks for helping out, but it does not work as expected.
>
> I first create a local.conf for the at91sam9261df
> and bitbake x11-image.
> Then I do "MACHINE=at91sam9g20dfc bitbake console-image".
> A console-image is built,but for the at91sam9261df,
> which is stored in "tmp/deploy/glibc/images/at91sam9261df"
>
> The bitbake does not generate u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
> for the at91sam9260dfc

Then either our uboot/kernel/bootstrap recipes are wrong, or your 
machine configs lack proper IMAGE_DEPENDS, either way that isn't the 
fault of doing MACHINE=foo

> I believe that most at91 chips can use the same file system,
> so it makes sense to do it this way anyway.

The images are built for the machine you specified with MACHINE, I 
suspect you are getting confused somewhere.

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Koen Kooi skrev:
> On 13-08-09 14:10, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>> On 13-08-09 12:07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>>>> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>>>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>>>>>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>>>>>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>>>>>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <SOF>
>>>>>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>>>>>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>>>>>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>>>>>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>>>>>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>>>>>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>>>>>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>>>>>> <EOF>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Didn't try that.
>>>> I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,
>>>
>>> Unless you poked at the gcc recipes, no, it won't get rebuilt.
>>>
>>>> Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?
>>>
>>> if you use rootfs_ipk.bbclass, yes.
>>>
>>> Note that the official angstrom buildguide has mentioned that for years:
>>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for helping out, but it does not work as expected.
>>
>> I first create a local.conf for the at91sam9261df
>> and bitbake x11-image.
>> Then I do "MACHINE=at91sam9g20dfc bitbake console-image".
>> A console-image is built,but for the at91sam9261df,
>> which is stored in "tmp/deploy/glibc/images/at91sam9261df"
>>
>> The bitbake does not generate u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
>> for the at91sam9260dfc
> 
> Then either our uboot/kernel/bootstrap recipes are wrong, or your
> machine configs lack proper IMAGE_DEPENDS, either way that isn't the
> fault of doing MACHINE=foo

I guess something is wrong...
Since I have created my own recipes for u-boot/bootstrap and kernel
I have a primary object for the blame ;-) if that is the case.

At least one more has reported u-boot, not beeing installed
and they are not using my recipes.

The machine description contains:
EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS += "u-boot"
EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS += "at91bootstrap"
This seems to be the way u-boot is used in other boards, correct?

It certainly makes the packages run until do_compile, but not any
further. What do I need to specify to make a package go through
to the do_deploy phase?

at91bootstrap installs its files as part of do_compile
which might be the wrong thing to do.
- It installs though and U-boot doesn't until you bitbake u-boot.

I might make a workaround to install u-boot in do_compile as well.
Part of my u-boot patches contains an new "make DESTDIR=... install
but if there is a preferred way of doing this, I would be keen to know.
U-boot and bootstrap are a bit special, in that they are not part
of the image, you just want to build them and install them anyway.

===============================================


I noted that some boards + 2 packages sets EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS.
conf/bitbake.conf:EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS = ""
recipes/kexecboot/initramfs-kexecboot-image.bb:EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS = ""

They are not using EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS += "..."

I assume the first is an initialization, but the second?
Not digged down deep enough to understand if this recipe is used,
but if it is:
Doesn't that mean that any previous declarations/dependencies are gone?


===============================================
I maintain that if I do "MACHINE=at91sam9260dfc bitbake at91bootstrap"
from the build directory, it is ignored and the MACHINE definition
(MACHINE=at91sam9261df) in local.conf is used.

Result:
NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 448 tasks of which 448 didn't need to be
rerun and 0 failed.

If I stay in the same directory and change local.conf
to have MACHINE="at91sam9260dfc" and then do
"bitbake at91bootstrap" then bootstrap builds for the new machine.

I am running OpenSuSE-x64 and this has done things differently
than Ubuntu multiple times...

If you say it should work, and I can't get it to work,
then I will just have to change the local.conf file
(by symlinking) every time I want to build for a new board
===============================================

> 
>> I believe that most at91 chips can use the same file system,
>> so it makes sense to do it this way anyway.
> 
> The images are built for the machine you specified with MACHINE, I
> suspect you are getting confused somewhere.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 17:23, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

> I maintain that if I do "MACHINE=at91sam9260dfc bitbake at91bootstrap"
> from the build directory, it is ignored and the MACHINE definition
> (MACHINE=at91sam9261df) in local.conf is used.

Yes, local.conf takes precedence over env, so remove it from local.conf.

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Koen Kooi skrev:
> On 13-08-09 17:23, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> 
>> I maintain that if I do "MACHINE=at91sam9260dfc bitbake at91bootstrap"
>> from the build directory, it is ignored and the MACHINE definition
>> (MACHINE=at91sam9261df) in local.conf is used.
> 
> Yes, local.conf takes precedence over env, so remove it from local.conf.
> 

Thanks,
It is easier in the script to symlink "build/conf/local.conf" to
"build/conf/${MACHINE}.conf" which has the correct MACHINE definition.
Then I can use the script as well as building manually
without having to remember to set MACHINE explicitly


> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 22:36, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Koen Kooi skrev:
>> On 13-08-09 17:23, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>
>>> I maintain that if I do "MACHINE=at91sam9260dfc bitbake at91bootstrap"
>>> from the build directory, it is ignored and the MACHINE definition
>>> (MACHINE=at91sam9261df) in local.conf is used.
>>
>> Yes, local.conf takes precedence over env, so remove it from local.conf.
>>
>
> Thanks,
> It is easier in the script to symlink "build/conf/local.conf" to
> "build/conf/${MACHINE}.conf" which has the correct MACHINE definition.
> Then I can use the script as well as building manually
> without having to remember to set MACHINE explicitly

ehm...

So you're saying "it's easier to do ln conf/mymachine.conf 
conf/local.conf ; bitbake foo than to do MACHINE=mymachine bitbake foo 
because I don't need to remember machine". To me that doesn't make sense 
since either way you end up setting machine pretty much manually. And 
your 'easier' way incurs a 10 minutes reparse penalty when switching 
machines while mine doesn't. I guess you like coffee breaks more than I 
do :)

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Koen Kooi skrev:
> On 13-08-09 22:36, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>> On 13-08-09 17:23, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I maintain that if I do "MACHINE=at91sam9260dfc bitbake at91bootstrap"
>>>> from the build directory, it is ignored and the MACHINE definition
>>>> (MACHINE=at91sam9261df) in local.conf is used.
>>>
>>> Yes, local.conf takes precedence over env, so remove it from local.conf.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> It is easier in the script to symlink "build/conf/local.conf" to
>> "build/conf/${MACHINE}.conf" which has the correct MACHINE definition.
>> Then I can use the script as well as building manually
>> without having to remember to set MACHINE explicitly
> 
> ehm...
> 
> So you're saying "it's easier to do ln conf/mymachine.conf
> conf/local.conf ; bitbake foo than to do MACHINE=mymachine bitbake foo
> because I don't need to remember machine". To me that doesn't make sense
> since either way you end up setting machine pretty much manually. And
> your 'easier' way incurs a 10 minutes reparse penalty when switching
> machines while mine doesn't. I guess you like coffee breaks more than I
> do :)
> 

The reason for doing a script is to allow building multiple stuff
when I am sleeping or travelling, and as long as things complete
I do not mind the 10 minute pauses.

When I am working interactively, I do not want to specify MACHINE
everytime I do something

Maybe this is something that would work...
alias bitbake="MACHINE=${BB_MACHINE} /path/to/bitbake"



-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia piątek, 14 sierpnia 2009 o 09:44:51 Ulf Samuelsson napisał(a):
> The reason for doing a script is to allow building multiple stuff
> when I am sleeping or travelling, and as long as things complete
> I do not mind the 10 minute pauses.
>
> When I am working interactively, I do not want to specify MACHINE
> everytime I do something
>
> Maybe this is something that would work...
> alias bitbake="MACHINE=${BB_MACHINE} /path/to/bitbake"

I do that in this style:

for mach in LIST-OF-BOARDS;do MACHINE=$mach bitbake something;done

This works fine in Bash and allow to do anything from remote etc.

My last use was:

for mach in `ls openembedded/conf/machine/at91*`;do export MACHINE=`basename 
$mach .conf`; bitbake -cclean base-files sysvinit task-base task-boot; bitbake 
console-image;done

To make it work you should have to use MACHINE ?= "machinename" in conf/*.conf 
files or just not set MACHINE there at all.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Marcin Juszkiewicz skrev:
> Dnia piątek, 14 sierpnia 2009 o 09:44:51 Ulf Samuelsson napisał(a):
>> The reason for doing a script is to allow building multiple stuff
>> when I am sleeping or travelling, and as long as things complete
>> I do not mind the 10 minute pauses.
>>
>> When I am working interactively, I do not want to specify MACHINE
>> everytime I do something
>>
>> Maybe this is something that would work...
>> alias bitbake="MACHINE=${BB_MACHINE} /path/to/bitbake"
> 
> I do that in this style:
> 
> for mach in LIST-OF-BOARDS;do MACHINE=$mach bitbake something;done
> 
> This works fine in Bash and allow to do anything from remote etc.
> 
> My last use was:
> 
> for mach in `ls openembedded/conf/machine/at91*`;do export MACHINE=`basename 
> $mach .conf`; bitbake -cclean base-files sysvinit task-base task-boot; bitbake 
> console-image;done
> 
> To make it work you should have to use MACHINE ?= "machinename" in conf/*.conf 
> files or just not set MACHINE there at all.
> 
OK, nice to know.

It takes less than 2 minutes to rebuild the cache on my machine
so it is less of an issue for me.

My buildscript will generate logs which is nice to have,
but I could do this with this method as well,

Also, my main goal is not to get a machine running for any
specific purpose.
I want to make sure that a certain machine will complete its
build properly, and if I do what people propose, won't I
sometimes miss a problem, because I previously built a machine
which worked OK, and then I use the result of that build instead
of the result for this specific machine.

Example:
If you build a recipe which has
SRC_URI_append_at91sam9263ek for the sam9263ek
and then bitbake MACHINE=at91sam9g45ek,
will that force a rebuild of the recipe?

If you then build at91sam9263ek again,then
does it do this again.
If not, then I have to do it my way.

> Regards, 


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Ulf

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Ulf Samuelsson<ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com> wrote:
> It takes less than 2 minutes to rebuild the cache on my machine
> so it is less of an issue for me.

Mind to describe your system?

Besides, depending on how many machines you are doing it can be a
problem. If you build 20 machines, you lose 40min for nothing ;-)

-- 
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Thursday 13 August 2009 14:10:24 Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

> Thanks for helping out, but it does not work as expected.
>
> I first create a local.conf for the at91sam9261df
> and bitbake x11-image.
> Then I do "MACHINE=at91sam9g20dfc bitbake console-image".
> A console-image is built,but for the at91sam9261df,
> which is stored in "tmp/deploy/glibc/images/at91sam9261df"
>
> The bitbake does not generate u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
> for the at91sam9260dfc

Stupid question. The task that should pull in u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap 
is not machine specific?

z.

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 14:56, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Thursday 13 August 2009 14:10:24 Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>
>> Thanks for helping out, but it does not work as expected.
>>
>> I first create a local.conf for the at91sam9261df
>> and bitbake x11-image.
>> Then I do "MACHINE=at91sam9g20dfc bitbake console-image".
>> A console-image is built,but for the at91sam9261df,
>> which is stored in "tmp/deploy/glibc/images/at91sam9261df"
>>
>> The bitbake does not generate u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
>> for the at91sam9260dfc
>
> Stupid question. The task that should pull in u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
> is not machine specific?

Hey, you spoilt the punchline to my teach-a-man-to-fish routine :)

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Thursday 13 August 2009 15:55:02 Koen Kooi wrote:
> On 13-08-09 14:56, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 August 2009 14:10:24 Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> Thanks for helping out, but it does not work as expected.
> >>
> >> I first create a local.conf for the at91sam9261df
> >> and bitbake x11-image.
> >> Then I do "MACHINE=at91sam9g20dfc bitbake console-image".
> >> A console-image is built,but for the at91sam9261df,
> >> which is stored in "tmp/deploy/glibc/images/at91sam9261df"
> >>
> >> The bitbake does not generate u-boot/kernel or at91bootstrap
> >> for the at91sam9260dfc
> >
> > Stupid question. The task that should pull in u-boot/kernel or
> > at91bootstrap is not machine specific?
>
> Hey, you spoilt the punchline to my teach-a-man-to-fish routine :)

sorry :}

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Koen Kooi skrev:
> On 13-08-09 12:07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>>>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>>>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>>>
>>>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>>>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>>>
>>>> <SOF>
>>>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>>>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>>>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>>>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>>>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>>>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>>>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>>>> <EOF>
>>>
>>> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
>>>
>>
>> Didn't try that.
>> I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,
> 
> Unless you poked at the gcc recipes, no, it won't get rebuilt.
> 
>> Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?
> 
> if you use rootfs_ipk.bbclass, yes.
> 
> Note that the official angstrom buildguide has mentioned that for years:
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
> 

I guess I can create a separate
"build/conf/<machine>.conf" per machine and link
"build/conf/local.conf" to this file.

if  "MACHINE=<machine> bitbake <whatever>" does not work


> regards,
> 
> Koen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Ideas for scripts, to save work, when building several boards

[Koen Kooi]

On 13-08-09 14:18, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Koen Kooi skrev:
>> On 13-08-09 12:07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>>> On 13-08-09 09:13, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>>> Since I will need to test multiple boards,
>>>>> I decided to write some scripts which I will
>>>>> check in later today in origin/ulf/linux-2.6.30.2
>>>>>
>>>>> I generated a "MAKEALL" script which will
>>>>> source a file "board_list.sh" with board build commands
>>>>>
>>>>> <SOF>
>>>>> build_board    sam9263dfc    x11-gpe-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9g45ek    opie-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9g10df    x11-gpe-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9g20dfc    console-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9260dfc    console-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9261df    x11-image
>>>>> build_board    sam9xedfc    console-image
>>>>> <EOF>
>>>>
>>>> You do know that you can do that with MACHINE=foo bitbake bar, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't try that.
>>> I assume this means that the cross compiler is not rebuilt,
>>
>> Unless you poked at the gcc recipes, no, it won't get rebuilt.
>>
>>> Is the root fs assembled from ipks then?
>>
>> if you use rootfs_ipk.bbclass, yes.
>>
>> Note that the official angstrom buildguide has mentioned that for years:
>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
>>
>
> I guess I can create a separate
> "build/conf/<machine>.conf" per machine and link
> "build/conf/local.conf" to this file.
>
> if  "MACHINE=<machine>  bitbake<whatever>" does not work

It does the exact same thing here, except that the angstrom method skips 
the 10 minute reparse and only parses things that got changed in between.
This is how the angstrom autobuilder works and it hasn't shown any 
problems in the method, it only highlighted broken zrecipes (e.g. 
zaurus-updater).

regards,

Koen