proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  i asked this on the beagle list, and koen pointed out that it was
probably more appropriate elsewhere (probably here).  what's the
proper algorithm for building the leading-edge images for a beagle xM
(rev C)?

  i realize there's canonical support in a yocto tree for the
beagleboard xM, but koen suggested i really want to use the meta-ti
layer for that instead.  (i'm guessing i'd want the same thing for my
pandaboard ES as well.)

  so is that the best bet?  a pointer to any page where someone
documents this would be just fine, thanks.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-02-28 01:51 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>    i asked this on the beagle list, and koen pointed out that it was
> probably more appropriate elsewhere (probably here).  what's the
> proper algorithm for building the leading-edge images for a beagle xM
> (rev C)?
>
>    i realize there's canonical support in a yocto tree for the
> beagleboard xM, but koen suggested i really want to use the meta-ti
> layer for that instead.  (i'm guessing i'd want the same thing for my
> pandaboard ES as well.)

It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means that
it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.

That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific features
then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti will meet your
needs.

As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest assured,
we are working on it.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
>    so is that the best bet?  a pointer to any page where someone
> documents this would be just fine, thanks.
>
> rday
>

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

> It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
> yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
> that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
>
> That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
> features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
> will meet your needs.
>
> As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
> assured, we are working on it.

  ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
leading-edge content, correct?  which is a perfectly respectable
answer.

  but the impression i got from koen is that this wasn't even the
right forum to ask such a question.  so i'm a bit confused -- can i
just use the combination of yocto + meta-ti to build a fairly
up-to-date image for my beagle xM or not?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 28 feb. 2012, om 22:55 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> 
>> It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
>> yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
>> that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
>> 
>> That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
>> features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
>> will meet your needs.
>> 
>> As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
>> assured, we are working on it.
> 
>  ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
> well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
> leading-edge content, correct? 

No, the amount of testing is not the difference, the amount of support for the board is. Meta-ti supports the camera interfaces, 3d engine, dsp, crypto engines, expansion boards, etc. Meta-yocto lacks all that for beagleboard.

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Koen Kooi wrote:

>
> Op 28 feb. 2012, om 22:55 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >
> >> It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
> >> yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
> >> that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
> >>
> >> That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
> >> features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
> >> will meet your needs.
> >>
> >> As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
> >> assured, we are working on it.
> >
> >  ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
> > well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
> > leading-edge content, correct?
>
> No, the amount of testing is not the difference, the amount of
> support for the board is. Meta-ti supports the camera interfaces, 3d
> engine, dsp, crypto engines, expansion boards, etc. Meta-yocto lacks
> all that for beagleboard.

  i understand that reasonably well, and i'll make one more
observation, then i'll shut up.

  i cloned the meta-ti layer into my yocto clone, and here's the
majority of the meta-ti README:

===== start

This layer depends on:

URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
branch: master
revision: HEAD

URI: git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded
branch: master
revision: HEAD

URI: git://git.angstrom-distribution.org/meta-angstrom
branch: master
revision: HEAD

Currently meta-ti only works with the Angstrom distribution and hence
requires the meta-angstrom layer. There are known issues when using
gcc-4.6 based toolchain from OpenEmbedded-Core, thus gcc-4.5
toolchain, provided by meta-openembedded, is needed. It is planned to
fix these shortcomings in the near future and allow building the base
BSP part of meta-ti with different distributions and layer stacks,
such as: distro-less (only with OE-Core), with Yocto/Poky, with
Angstrom or Arago.

Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions at
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom

This will set it up for the OpenEmbedded-core layout instead of the
old "Classic" OpenEmbedded-dev layout. You can optionally tweak
sources/layers.txt and conf/bblayers.conf to (de)select BSP layers.

===== end

  by the time i'm done reading that, i'm not sure whether i've been
told i can use yocto as long as i do the necessary prep first, or that
i should give up on yocto and just use angstrom directly.  i'm fine
with either approach, but the README seems to just waffle *totally* on
which strategy to use.

  quite simply, that README seems to provide nothing but more
confusion than anything else.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 28 feb. 2012, om 23:28 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Op 28 feb. 2012, om 22:55 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
>>>> yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
>>>> that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
>>>> 
>>>> That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
>>>> features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
>>>> will meet your needs.
>>>> 
>>>> As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
>>>> assured, we are working on it.
>>> 
>>> ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
>>> well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
>>> leading-edge content, correct?
>> 
>> No, the amount of testing is not the difference, the amount of
>> support for the board is. Meta-ti supports the camera interfaces, 3d
>> engine, dsp, crypto engines, expansion boards, etc. Meta-yocto lacks
>> all that for beagleboard.
> 
>  i understand that reasonably well, and i'll make one more
> observation, then i'll shut up.
> 
>  i cloned the meta-ti layer into my yocto clone, and here's the
> majority of the meta-ti README:
> 
> ===== start
> 
> This layer depends on:
> 
> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
> 
> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
> 
> URI: git://git.angstrom-distribution.org/meta-angstrom
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
> 
> Currently meta-ti only works with the Angstrom distribution and hence
> requires the meta-angstrom layer. There are known issues when using
> gcc-4.6 based toolchain from OpenEmbedded-Core, thus gcc-4.5
> toolchain, provided by meta-openembedded, is needed. It is planned to
> fix these shortcomings in the near future and allow building the base
> BSP part of meta-ti with different distributions and layer stacks,
> such as: distro-less (only with OE-Core), with Yocto/Poky, with
> Angstrom or Arago.
> 
> Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions at
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
> 
> This will set it up for the OpenEmbedded-core layout instead of the
> old "Classic" OpenEmbedded-dev layout. You can optionally tweak
> sources/layers.txt and conf/bblayers.conf to (de)select BSP layers.
> 
> ===== end
> 
>  by the time i'm done reading that, i'm not sure whether i've been
> told i can use yocto as long as i do the necessary prep first, or that
> i should give up on yocto and just use angstrom directly.  

Well, if you use the angstrom setupscript you get 'yocto'. Your phrasing seems to suggest you are confusing 'yocto' with 'poky', which is a common mistake.

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Stewart, David C]

>From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
>bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Koen Kooi
>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:07 AM
>
>Well, if you use the angstrom setupscript you get 'yocto'. Your phrasing seems
>to suggest you are confusing 'yocto' with 'poky', which is a common mistake.

Hey all - from the project perspective, the Yocto Project includes Poky, so I think it's very appropriate for Robert to think that using YP implies using Poky. This is in all of the project's official QA and communications, so I think it's reasonable.

Dave

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Stewart, David C wrote:

> >From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
> >bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Koen Kooi
> >Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:07 AM
> >
> >Well, if you use the angstrom setupscript you get 'yocto'. Your phrasing seems
> >to suggest you are confusing 'yocto' with 'poky', which is a common mistake.
>
> Hey all - from the project perspective, the Yocto Project includes
> Poky, so I think it's very appropriate for Robert to think that
> using YP implies using Poky. This is in all of the project's
> official QA and communications, so I think it's reasonable.

  i do understand the distinction and i will admit, i'm sometimes
sloppy with my terminology.  as someone who is constantly berating
others for their lack of precision, i should know better. :-)

rday


-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 2 mrt. 2012, om 17:45 heeft Stewart, David C het volgende geschreven:

>> From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
>> bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Koen Kooi
>> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:07 AM
>> 
>> Well, if you use the angstrom setupscript you get 'yocto'. Your phrasing seems
>> to suggest you are confusing 'yocto' with 'poky', which is a common mistake.
> 
> Hey all - from the project perspective, the Yocto Project includes Poky, so I think it's very appropriate for Robert to think that using YP implies using Poky. This is in all of the project's official QA and communications, so I think it's reasonable.

This begs the questions where other distributions (and OSVs) fit into yocto. 

regards,

Koen

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[William Mills]

On 02/28/2012 05:28 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
>> Op 28 feb. 2012, om 22:55 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
>>>> yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
>>>> that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
>>>> features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
>>>> will meet your needs.
>>>>
>>>> As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
>>>> assured, we are working on it.
>>>   ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
>>> well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
>>> leading-edge content, correct?
>> No, the amount of testing is not the difference, the amount of
>> support for the board is. Meta-ti supports the camera interfaces, 3d
>> engine, dsp, crypto engines, expansion boards, etc. Meta-yocto lacks
>> all that for beagleboard.
>    i understand that reasonably well, and i'll make one more
> observation, then i'll shut up.
>
>    i cloned the meta-ti layer into my yocto clone, and here's the
> majority of the meta-ti README:
>
> ===== start
>
> This layer depends on:
>
> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
>
> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
>
> URI: git://git.angstrom-distribution.org/meta-angstrom
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
>
> Currently meta-ti only works with the Angstrom distribution and hence
> requires the meta-angstrom layer. There are known issues when using
> gcc-4.6 based toolchain from OpenEmbedded-Core, thus gcc-4.5
> toolchain, provided by meta-openembedded, is needed. It is planned to
> fix these shortcomings in the near future and allow building the base
> BSP part of meta-ti with different distributions and layer stacks,
> such as: distro-less (only with OE-Core), with Yocto/Poky, with
> Angstrom or Arago.
>
> Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions at
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
>
> This will set it up for the OpenEmbedded-core layout instead of the
> old "Classic" OpenEmbedded-dev layout. You can optionally tweak
> sources/layers.txt and conf/bblayers.conf to (de)select BSP layers.
>
> ===== end
>
>    by the time i'm done reading that, i'm not sure whether i've been
> told i can use yocto as long as i do the necessary prep first, or that
> i should give up on yocto and just use angstrom directly.  i'm fine
> with either approach, but the README seems to just waffle *totally* on
> which strategy to use.
>
>    quite simply, that README seems to provide nothing but more
> confusion than anything else.

Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt 
language :) (patched two days ago).

Denys: I suggest

change:

"Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions at
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"

to:

"When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will be supplied here.
Until that time please see the Angstrom setup instructions below.

*** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
Please follow the instructions at
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"

etc.

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:

... snip ...

> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
> language :) (patched two days ago).
>
> Denys: I suggest
>
> change:
>
> "Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
> at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>
> to:
>
> "When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
> be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
> instructions below.
>
> *** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
> Please follow the instructions at
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"

  i might try something a bit different.  given that angstrom is the
tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
recommend that approach.

  on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
combo?  is it *known* to be broken?  or is it simply not sufficiently
tested?  in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
get to keep all the pieces.

  don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
proper instructions for how to use it, that's all.  unless, as i said,
it's really and truly unusable.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[William Mills]

On 03/02/2012 05:33 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
>> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
>> language :) (patched two days ago).
>>
>> Denys: I suggest
>>
>> change:
>>
>> "Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
>> at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>
>> to:
>>
>> "When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
>> be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
>> instructions below.
>>
>> *** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
>> Please follow the instructions at
>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>
>    i might try something a bit different.  given that angstrom is the
> tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
> recommend that approach.
>
>    on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
> combo?  is it *known* to be broken?  or is it simply not sufficiently
> tested?  in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
> about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
> they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
> get to keep all the pieces.
>
>    don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
> proper instructions for how to use it, that's all.  unless, as i said,
> it's really and truly unusable.

We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o 
Angstrom.

As soon as we remove the above for even one platform we will update the 
README to reflect an Alpha state for oc-core &| poky layer stack for 
that platform(s).

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Gary Thomas]

On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:
>
>
> On 03/02/2012 05:33 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>>> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
>>> language :) (patched two days ago).
>>>
>>> Denys: I suggest
>>>
>>> change:
>>>
>>> "Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
>>> at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>>
>>> to:
>>>
>>> "When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
>>> be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
>>> instructions below.
>>>
>>> *** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
>>> Please follow the instructions at
>>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>
>> i might try something a bit different. given that angstrom is the
>> tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
>> recommend that approach.
>>
>> on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
>> combo? is it *known* to be broken? or is it simply not sufficiently
>> tested? in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
>> about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
>> they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
>> get to keep all the pieces.
>>
>> don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
>> proper instructions for how to use it, that's all. unless, as i said,
>> it's really and truly unusable.
>
> We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
> Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
> Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o Angstrom.

Can you elaborate on the above?  I have been [I think] successfully using poky+meta-ti
to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the best choice
for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms.  So far, I've only
had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:

* In conf/local.conf, I use this to avoid parsing problems with some meta-ti
   recipes (none of which I need at the moment)
     # Ignore troublesome TI recipes
     BBMASK = ".*/meta-ti/recipes-misc/"

* In distro.conf (I do have my own distro, but it's very close to poky), I needed
     # Allow hardware overrides, e.g. armv7a
     OVERRIDES .= ":${SOC_FAMILY}"

With these minor additions, I've been able to use the meta-ti layer for [some]
kernel work, u-boot, DSP support, etc - all the stuff one expects the layer
to provide.

I know my setup is a bit outside pure poky+meta-ti, but it does show that
you don't actually have to have Angstrom to use meta-ti.

It would be nice to understand what your concerns are, certainly the details
of your two "Today,..." statements above, if they fall outside what I've outlined
here.

> As soon as we remove the above for even one platform we will update the README to reflect an Alpha state for oc-core &| poky layer stack for that platform(s).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[William Mills]

On 03/02/2012 06:18 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/02/2012 05:33 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:
>>>
>>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>>> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
>>>> language :) (patched two days ago).
>>>>
>>>> Denys: I suggest
>>>>
>>>> change:
>>>>
>>>> "Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
>>>> at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>>>
>>>> to:
>>>>
>>>> "When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
>>>> be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
>>>> instructions below.
>>>>
>>>> *** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
>>>> Please follow the instructions at
>>>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>>
>>> i might try something a bit different. given that angstrom is the
>>> tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
>>> recommend that approach.
>>>
>>> on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
>>> combo? is it *known* to be broken? or is it simply not sufficiently
>>> tested? in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
>>> about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
>>> they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
>>> get to keep all the pieces.
>>>
>>> don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
>>> proper instructions for how to use it, that's all. unless, as i said,
>>> it's really and truly unusable.
>>
>> We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
>> Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
>> Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o
>> Angstrom.
>
> Can you elaborate on the above? I have been [I think] successfully using
> poky+meta-ti
> to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the
> best choice
> for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms. So far, I've only
> had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:

If we can make some simple changes (or document workarounds) that enable 
bare bones support for poky/oe-core that does not break full support in 
Angstrom, I'm all for it.  Even if we have to limit it to a subset of 
boards.

I'll try to give you a better answer Monday.

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:18:41PM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:
> >We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
> >Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
> >Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o Angstrom.
> 
> Can you elaborate on the above?  I have been [I think] successfully using poky+meta-ti
> to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the best choice
> for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms.  So far, I've only
> had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:
> 
> * In conf/local.conf, I use this to avoid parsing problems with some meta-ti
>   recipes (none of which I need at the moment)
>     # Ignore troublesome TI recipes
>     BBMASK = ".*/meta-ti/recipes-misc/"
> 
> * In distro.conf (I do have my own distro, but it's very close to poky), I needed
>     # Allow hardware overrides, e.g. armv7a
>     OVERRIDES .= ":${SOC_FAMILY}"
> 
> With these minor additions, I've been able to use the meta-ti layer for [some]
> kernel work, u-boot, DSP support, etc - all the stuff one expects the layer
> to provide.
> 
> I know my setup is a bit outside pure poky+meta-ti, but it does show that
> you don't actually have to have Angstrom to use meta-ti.
> 
> It would be nice to understand what your concerns are, certainly the details
> of your two "Today,..." statements above, if they fall outside what I've outlined
> here.

Gary,

Clearly, the README is meant for the new people, who might find it too 
complicated for the above fixes to be applied in order for them to avoid using 
Angstrom. But you are correct, besides known isues with gcc-4.6 not working 
for some components and hence requiring meta-oe; SOC_FAMILY and systemd 
dependency in recipes-misc/images were the only other two things requiring 
meta-angstrom layer.

You can try the updated meta-ti now, as it should solve those dependencies, 
thanks to Koen's latest patches. Please let us know how it works for you. 
Thanks.

-- 
Denys

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:18:41PM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> > On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:
> > >We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
> > >Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
> > >Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o Angstrom.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on the above?  I have been [I think] successfully using poky+meta-ti
> > to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the best choice
> > for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms.  So far, I've only
> > had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:
> >
> > * In conf/local.conf, I use this to avoid parsing problems with some meta-ti
> >   recipes (none of which I need at the moment)
> >     # Ignore troublesome TI recipes
> >     BBMASK = ".*/meta-ti/recipes-misc/"
> >
> > * In distro.conf (I do have my own distro, but it's very close to poky), I needed
> >     # Allow hardware overrides, e.g. armv7a
> >     OVERRIDES .= ":${SOC_FAMILY}"
> >
> > With these minor additions, I've been able to use the meta-ti layer for [some]
> > kernel work, u-boot, DSP support, etc - all the stuff one expects the layer
> > to provide.
> >
> > I know my setup is a bit outside pure poky+meta-ti, but it does show that
> > you don't actually have to have Angstrom to use meta-ti.
> >
> > It would be nice to understand what your concerns are, certainly the details
> > of your two "Today,..." statements above, if they fall outside what I've outlined
> > here.
>
> Gary,
>
> Clearly, the README is meant for the new people, who might find it
> too complicated for the above fixes to be applied in order for them
> to avoid using Angstrom. But you are correct, besides known isues
> with gcc-4.6 not working for some components and hence requiring
> meta-oe; SOC_FAMILY and systemd dependency in recipes-misc/images
> were the only other two things requiring meta-angstrom layer.
>
> You can try the updated meta-ti now, as it should solve those
> dependencies, thanks to Koen's latest patches. Please let us know
> how it works for you. Thanks.

  not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build for,
say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti into my
yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried to

$ bitbake core-image-minimal

and got what i believe gary was referring to above:

$ bitbake core-image-minimal
Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main build
ERROR: ParseError at /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1

  or am i misreading what you wrote?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Gary Thomas]

On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:18:41PM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:
>>>> We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
>>>> Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
>>>> Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o Angstrom.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on the above?  I have been [I think] successfully using poky+meta-ti
>>> to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the best choice
>>> for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms.  So far, I've only
>>> had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:
>>>
>>> * In conf/local.conf, I use this to avoid parsing problems with some meta-ti
>>>    recipes (none of which I need at the moment)
>>>      # Ignore troublesome TI recipes
>>>      BBMASK = ".*/meta-ti/recipes-misc/"
>>>
>>> * In distro.conf (I do have my own distro, but it's very close to poky), I needed
>>>      # Allow hardware overrides, e.g. armv7a
>>>      OVERRIDES .= ":${SOC_FAMILY}"
>>>
>>> With these minor additions, I've been able to use the meta-ti layer for [some]
>>> kernel work, u-boot, DSP support, etc - all the stuff one expects the layer
>>> to provide.
>>>
>>> I know my setup is a bit outside pure poky+meta-ti, but it does show that
>>> you don't actually have to have Angstrom to use meta-ti.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to understand what your concerns are, certainly the details
>>> of your two "Today,..." statements above, if they fall outside what I've outlined
>>> here.
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> Clearly, the README is meant for the new people, who might find it
>> too complicated for the above fixes to be applied in order for them
>> to avoid using Angstrom. But you are correct, besides known isues
>> with gcc-4.6 not working for some components and hence requiring
>> meta-oe; SOC_FAMILY and systemd dependency in recipes-misc/images
>> were the only other two things requiring meta-angstrom layer.
>>
>> You can try the updated meta-ti now, as it should solve those
>> dependencies, thanks to Koen's latest patches. Please let us know
>> how it works for you. Thanks.
>
>    not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build for,
> say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti into my
> yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried to
>
> $ bitbake core-image-minimal
>
> and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
>
> $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main build
> ERROR: ParseError at /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
> Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
> ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
>
>    or am i misreading what you wrote?

Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

... much snipping below to get to the gist of it ...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:

> On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >    not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
> > for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
> > into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
> > to
> >
> > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> >
> > and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
> >
> > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> > Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
> > build
> > ERROR: ParseError at
> > /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
> > Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
> > ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
> >
> >    or am i misreading what you wrote?
>
> Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
> is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
> layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.

  regardless of the fix, i would think that the proper name for that
recipe file would be something like "beaglescript.bb" and not
"bonescript.bb", since it opens with:

DESCRIPTION = "Scripting tools for the BeagleBoard and BeagleBone"

that is, if it's relevant to both boards, it's inappropriate to give
it a name of bonescript.bb, don't you think?

rday

p.s.  i plan on spending all day messing with yocto, and i have lots
of spare cycles on my quad-core ASUS, so if anyone wants me to build
stuff or test stuff, let me know.

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 4 mrt. 2012, om 13:54 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:

> 
> ... much snipping below to get to the gist of it ...
> 
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> 
>>>   not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
>>> for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
>>> into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
>>> to
>>> 
>>> $ bitbake core-image-minimal
>>> 
>>> and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
>>> 
>>> $ bitbake core-image-minimal
>>> Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
>>> build
>>> ERROR: ParseError at
>>> /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
>>> Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
>>> ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
>>> 
>>>   or am i misreading what you wrote?
>> 
>> Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
>> is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
>> layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.
> 
>  regardless of the fix, i would think that the proper name for that
> recipe file would be something like "beaglescript.bb" and not
> "bonescript.bb", since it opens with:
> 
> DESCRIPTION = "Scripting tools for the BeagleBoard and BeagleBone"
> 
> that is, if it's relevant to both boards, it's inappropriate to give
> it a name of bonescript.bb, don't you think?

First:

-EWRONGLIST

Second:

Upstream calls it bonescript https://github.com/jadonk/bonescript

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:

> On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >    not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
> > for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
> > into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
> > to
> >
> > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> >
> > and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
> >
> > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> > Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
> > build
> > ERROR: ParseError at
> > /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
> > Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
> > ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
> >
> >    or am i misreading what you wrote?
>
> Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
> is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
> layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.

  um ... AFAICT, that .bbclass file is in meta-oe, not oe-core.  and
since i have meta-openembedded checked out, i simply copied the whole
thing into my yocto tree, then tweaked my bblayers.conf file to look
like:

BBLAYERS ?= " \
  /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta \
  /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-yocto \
  /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti \
  /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \
  "

then started:

  $ bitbake core-image-minimal    (MACHINE=beagleboard)

and it seems to be building.  i'm entirely prepared for this to fail
at some point, but i might as well see how far it gets.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 01:14:17PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > >    not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
> > > for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
> > > into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
> > > to
> > >
> > > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> > >
> > > and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
> > >
> > > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> > > Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
> > > build
> > > ERROR: ParseError at
> > > /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
> > > Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
> > > ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
> > >
> > >    or am i misreading what you wrote?
> >
> > Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
> > is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
> > layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.
> 
>   um ... AFAICT, that .bbclass file is in meta-oe, not oe-core.  and
> since i have meta-openembedded checked out, i simply copied the whole
> thing into my yocto tree, then tweaked my bblayers.conf file to look
> like:
> 
> BBLAYERS ?= " \
>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta \
>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-yocto \
>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti \
>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \
>   "

Either way, meta-oe is still required for meta-ti due to toolchain issues...

> then started:
> 
>   $ bitbake core-image-minimal    (MACHINE=beagleboard)
> 
> and it seems to be building.  i'm entirely prepared for this to fail
> at some point, but i might as well see how far it gets.

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 01:14:17PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >
> > > >    not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
> > > > for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
> > > > into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> > > >
> > > > and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
> > > >
> > > > $ bitbake core-image-minimal
> > > > Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
> > > > build
> > > > ERROR: ParseError at
> > > > /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
> > > > Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
> > > > ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
> > > >
> > > >    or am i misreading what you wrote?
> > >
> > > Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
> > > is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
> > > layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.
> >
> >   um ... AFAICT, that .bbclass file is in meta-oe, not oe-core.  and
> > since i have meta-openembedded checked out, i simply copied the whole
> > thing into my yocto tree, then tweaked my bblayers.conf file to look
> > like:
> >
> > BBLAYERS ?= " \
> >   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta \
> >   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-yocto \
> >   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti \
> >   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \
> >   "
>
> Either way, meta-oe is still required for meta-ti due to toolchain issues...

  i *know* what i'm about to point out is an OE issue and i already
quietly emailed koen, but when i tried the above (actually reordered
my BBLAYERS entries first), i got a udev fetch error since it was
trying to fetch udev-173, and there is simply no such version at the
specified fetch location, so i added:

PREFERRED_VERSION_udev ?= "181"

to my local.conf and it's building (currently 2222 of 2429).  so
someone in the OE community is welcome to address the issue that there
is no udev-173 tarball here:

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/

  my bitbake should either finish or fail within 15 minutes.

rday

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Gary Thomas]

On 2012-03-04 12:27, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 01:14:17PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
>>>> for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
>>>> into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>> $ bitbake core-image-minimal
>>>>
>>>> and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
>>>>
>>>> $ bitbake core-image-minimal
>>>> Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
>>>> build
>>>> ERROR: ParseError at
>>>> /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
>>>> Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
>>>> ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
>>>>
>>>>     or am i misreading what you wrote?
>>>
>>> Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
>>> is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
>>> layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.
>>
>>    um ... AFAICT, that .bbclass file is in meta-oe, not oe-core.  and
>> since i have meta-openembedded checked out, i simply copied the whole
>> thing into my yocto tree, then tweaked my bblayers.conf file to look
>> like:
>>
>> BBLAYERS ?= " \
>>    /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta \
>>    /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-yocto \
>>    /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti \
>>    /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \
>>    "
>
> Either way, meta-oe is still required for meta-ti due to toolchain issues...

Can you explain what the toolchain problems are and why the versions in
oe-core don't work for meta-ti?

>
>> then started:
>>
>>    $ bitbake core-image-minimal    (MACHINE=beagleboard)
>>
>> and it seems to be building.  i'm entirely prepared for this to fail
>> at some point, but i might as well see how far it gets.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Brian Hutchinson]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> Can you explain what the toolchain problems are and why the versions in
> oe-core don't work for meta-ti?

I'd like to know this myself because I need to build 64bit & 32bit
toolchains (meta-toolchain) and currently I can only get both to build
OK under Poky (yocto trunk) but it is 4.6.x and I need to work with
meta-ti.  I can only build the 64bit toolchain under Angstrom ... for
some reason I can't get the 32bit toolchain built.

Since the Poky build did what I wanted ... I'd like to use it but I
don't know what specifically the 4.6.x toolchain won't work with when
using meta-ti.

Regards,

Brain

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 12:45:01PM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-03-04 12:27, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 01:14:17PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2012-03-04 05:19, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    not sure if you're suggesting i should now be able to build
> >>>>for, say, beagleboard with the meta-ti layer, but i cloned meta-ti
> >>>>into my yocto tree, added that layer to bblayers.conf, and tried
> >>>>to
> >>>>
> >>>>$ bitbake core-image-minimal
> >>>>
> >>>>and got what i believe gary was referring to above:
> >>>>
> >>>>$ bitbake core-image-minimal
> >>>>Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main
> >>>>build
> >>>>ERROR: ParseError at
> >>>>/home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti/recipes-misc/payload/bonescript.bb:5:
> >>>>Could not inherit file classes/systemd.bbclass
> >>>>ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
> >>>>
> >>>>    or am i misreading what you wrote?
> >>>
> >>>Oops, that's one more workaround I forgot to mention.  This file
> >>>is in OE-core, but not in poky.  I made a local copy in my distro
> >>>layer, but there must be a better way to handle it.
> >>
> >>   um ... AFAICT, that .bbclass file is in meta-oe, not oe-core.  and
> >>since i have meta-openembedded checked out, i simply copied the whole
> >>thing into my yocto tree, then tweaked my bblayers.conf file to look
> >>like:
> >>
> >>BBLAYERS ?= " \
> >>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta \
> >>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-yocto \
> >>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-ti \
> >>   /home/rpjday/yocto/git/meta-openembedded/meta-oe \
> >>   "
> >
> >Either way, meta-oe is still required for meta-ti due to toolchain issues...
> 
> Can you explain what the toolchain problems are and why the versions in
> oe-core don't work for meta-ti?

One of the issues:

https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-February/000491.html

I haven't tried if either 3.0 or a pending 3.1 update for Panda (from 
omapzoom/ti-ubuntu), resolve this gcc-4.6 build issue. But either way I 
believe there was something else with one of our components not building with 
gcc-4.6 - SGX or multimedia, don't remember exactly.

-- 
Denys

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:

> One of the issues:
>
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-February/000491.html
>
> I haven't tried if either 3.0 or a pending 3.1 update for Panda
> (from omapzoom/ti-ubuntu), resolve this gcc-4.6 build issue. But
> either way I believe there was something else with one of our
> components not building with gcc-4.6 - SGX or multimedia, don't
> remember exactly.

  taking koen's advice to heart, should this discussion be happening
on the meta-ti list?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: [yocto] proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:18:54PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> 
> > One of the issues:
> >
> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-February/000491.html
> >
> > I haven't tried if either 3.0 or a pending 3.1 update for Panda
> > (from omapzoom/ti-ubuntu), resolve this gcc-4.6 build issue. But
> > either way I believe there was something else with one of our
> > components not building with gcc-4.6 - SGX or multimedia, don't
> > remember exactly.
> 
>   taking koen's advice to heart, should this discussion be happening
> on the meta-ti list?

Sure, let's switch to meta-ti...

Here's another report of gcc-4.6 failing on u-boot, due to wrong optimization 
used, which should be easy to fix, though:

https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-February/000614.html

-- 
Denys

Re: [yocto] proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:18:54PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >
> > > One of the issues:
> > >
> > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-February/000491.html
> > >
> > > I haven't tried if either 3.0 or a pending 3.1 update for Panda
> > > (from omapzoom/ti-ubuntu), resolve this gcc-4.6 build issue. But
> > > either way I believe there was something else with one of our
> > > components not building with gcc-4.6 - SGX or multimedia, don't
> > > remember exactly.
> >
> >   taking koen's advice to heart, should this discussion be happening
> > on the meta-ti list?
>
> Sure, let's switch to meta-ti...
>
> Here's another report of gcc-4.6 failing on u-boot, due to wrong optimization
> used, which should be easy to fix, though:
>
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-ti/2012-February/000614.html

  oh, *that* issue.  yes, that's what i've been working around in
another context.  i didn't realize that's what we were talking about
when you mentioned toolchain issues.  if that's the same problem, that
goes back to september of 2011:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50266

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:

> Can you explain what the toolchain problems are and why the versions
> in oe-core don't work for meta-ti?

  i just finished doing a "bitbake core-image-minimal" for a
beagleboard using the meta-ti layer, and having only to set a
preferred version for udev.

  the build finished (albeit with a few warnings), and i have all of
the images i would expect for a beagle xM.  should i consider this a
form of success -- the simple fact that the build appeared to succeed?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:38:36PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
> > Can you explain what the toolchain problems are and why the versions
> > in oe-core don't work for meta-ti?
> 
>   i just finished doing a "bitbake core-image-minimal" for a
> beagleboard using the meta-ti layer, and having only to set a
> preferred version for udev.
> 
>   the build finished (albeit with a few warnings), and i have all of
> the images i would expect for a beagle xM.  should i consider this a
> form of success -- the simple fact that the build appeared to succeed?

Did you have meta-oe in your layer stack?

-- 
Denys

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Jack Mitchell]

On 04/03/12 21:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Gary Thomas wrote:
>
>> Can you explain what the toolchain problems are and why the versions
>> in oe-core don't work for meta-ti?
>
>    i just finished doing a "bitbake core-image-minimal" for a
> beagleboard using the meta-ti layer, and having only to set a
> preferred version for udev.
>
>    the build finished (albeit with a few warnings), and i have all of
> the images i would expect for a beagle xM.  should i consider this a
> form of success -- the simple fact that the build appeared to succeed?
>
> rday
>

Does it boot? I would expect this to be the next test? If you don't have 
a beagleboard to test if you host it somewhere I can give it quick go 
later today if I get time.

Regards,

-- 

   Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk)
   Embedded Systems Engineer
   http://www.embed.me.uk

--

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:22:30PM -0500, William Mills wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/28/2012 05:28 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >
> >>Op 28 feb. 2012, om 22:55 heeft Robert P. J. Day het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
> >>>>yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
> >>>>that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
> >>>>
> >>>>That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
> >>>>features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
> >>>>will meet your needs.
> >>>>
> >>>>As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
> >>>>assured, we are working on it.
> >>>  ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
> >>>well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
> >>>leading-edge content, correct?
> >>No, the amount of testing is not the difference, the amount of
> >>support for the board is. Meta-ti supports the camera interfaces, 3d
> >>engine, dsp, crypto engines, expansion boards, etc. Meta-yocto lacks
> >>all that for beagleboard.
> >   i understand that reasonably well, and i'll make one more
> >observation, then i'll shut up.
> >
> >   i cloned the meta-ti layer into my yocto clone, and here's the
> >majority of the meta-ti README:
> >
> >===== start
> >
> >This layer depends on:
> >
> >URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
> >branch: master
> >revision: HEAD
> >
> >URI: git://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded
> >branch: master
> >revision: HEAD
> >
> >URI: git://git.angstrom-distribution.org/meta-angstrom
> >branch: master
> >revision: HEAD
> >
> >Currently meta-ti only works with the Angstrom distribution and hence
> >requires the meta-angstrom layer. There are known issues when using
> >gcc-4.6 based toolchain from OpenEmbedded-Core, thus gcc-4.5
> >toolchain, provided by meta-openembedded, is needed. It is planned to
> >fix these shortcomings in the near future and allow building the base
> >BSP part of meta-ti with different distributions and layer stacks,
> >such as: distro-less (only with OE-Core), with Yocto/Poky, with
> >Angstrom or Arago.
> >
> >Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions at
> >http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom
> >
> >This will set it up for the OpenEmbedded-core layout instead of the
> >old "Classic" OpenEmbedded-dev layout. You can optionally tweak
> >sources/layers.txt and conf/bblayers.conf to (de)select BSP layers.
> >
> >===== end
> >
> >   by the time i'm done reading that, i'm not sure whether i've been
> >told i can use yocto as long as i do the necessary prep first, or that
> >i should give up on yocto and just use angstrom directly.  i'm fine
> >with either approach, but the README seems to just waffle *totally* on
> >which strategy to use.
> >
> >   quite simply, that README seems to provide nothing but more
> >confusion than anything else.
> 
> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
> language :) (patched two days ago).

Actually, he is the first one to complain about the meat (i.e. added one 
paragraph with 3 statements) - everyone else before him was complaining about 
not enough info in the README, hence the addition.

-- 
Denys

Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-02-28 4:55 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>> It is true that the beagleboard is a hardware reference board in the
>> yocto consolidated kernel tree and meta-yocto layers. That means
>> that it gets the yocto standard QA builds and boot testing.
>>
>> That being said, if you are looking for the latest + specific
>> features then you've been pointed in a good direction .. meta-ti
>> will meet your needs.
>>
>> As for disentangling and reducing questions in this area .. rest
>> assured, we are working on it.
>
>    ok, that's perfectly reasonable -- meta-yocto provides a generic,
> well-tested product, while the meta-ti layer provides more
> leading-edge content, correct?  which is a perfectly respectable
> answer.
>
>    but the impression i got from koen is that this wasn't even the
> right forum to ask such a question.  so i'm a bit confused -- can i
> just use the combination of yocto + meta-ti to build a fairly
> up-to-date image for my beagle xM or not?

I'm not 100% up on the progress on the TI layers, but as far as
I know, your description above is a goal.  meta-ti works on top of
oe-core and with other layers (i.e. angstrom) to produce what you
describe. I've also heard that there's a variant that works with
(just) oe-core (I'm not recalling all the details and can't look
them up right now) to produce an image. The READMEs in the various
layers should spell out the dependencies.

If you are still working on this, and it isn't making sense, drop
another email and someone can help translate!

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> rday
>