From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F53E0044A for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q79HO9Sm000365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.146.67] (128.224.146.67) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.309.2; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:24:09 -0700 Message-ID: <5023F236.6030503@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:24:06 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20120809155747.983f9270-e6b9-49c4-ae24-aff577803480.mhubig@imko.de> <20120809171242.f3f42cd3-3ca6-4924-88b1-a982a4bfe7e1.mhubig@imko.de> In-Reply-To: <20120809171242.f3f42cd3-3ca6-4924-88b1-a982a4bfe7e1.mhubig@imko.de> Subject: Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:24:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12-08-09 12:32 PM, Markus Hubig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:48:30AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Markus Hubig wrote: > > > >>> Comparing the output of "bitbake -e linux-yocto" for both MACHINE settings >>> I notice that for stamp9g20 KMACHINE is "stamp9g20" but for portuxg20 it's >>> "common-pc", which results in these "updateme" command: >>> >>> | updateme --branch standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs -DKDESC=common-pc:standard >>> | --feature features/netfilter --feature features/taskstats arm common-pc >>> | poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/hardware.cfg >>> | poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/non-hardware.cfg >>> | poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20.cfg >>> | poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20-preempt-rt.scc >>> | poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20.scc >>> | poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20-standard.scc >>> >>> Which again (I think ...) leads to a kernel compile error ... >>> >>> Unfortunately I was not able to find out why the KMACHINE variable is not setup >>> correctly with my BSP for PortuxG20 ... > > Damn! Found the problem, just a typo :-) > > | -KMACHINE_portux9g20 = "portuxg20" > | +KMACHINE_portuxg20 = "portuxg20" > >> Is this the same BSP producing the kconf check warnings on denzil ? I >> ran tests this morning and denzil itself is clean, so there's definitely >> something wrong in the layer. > > Yes it's the same BSP and the kconf_check warnings are persistent! > > | WARNING: Can't find any BSP hardware or required configuration fragments. > | WARNING: Looked at > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/hdw_frags.txt > | and > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/required_frags.txt > | in directory: > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs > > As I mentiond before the files kconf_check should (IMHO) have a look > at are in: > > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20 > > If I ran the kconf_check manually I get an output, but not a very > promissing one :( > > | This BSP sets 4 invalid/obsolete kernel options. > | These config options are not offered anywhere within this kernel. > | The full list can be found in your workspace at: > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/invalid.cfg > | > | This BSP sets 10 kernel options that are possibly non-hardware related. > | The full list can be found in your workspace at: > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/specified_non_hdw.cfg > | > | WARNING: There were 17 hardware options requested that do not > | have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file. > | This probably means you aren't getting the config you wanted. > | The full list can be found in your workspace at: > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/mismatch.cfg > | > | Waiting a second to make sure you get a chance to see this... > | ** NOTE: There were 0 required options requested that do not > | have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file. > | This is a violation of the policy defined by the higher level config > | The full list can be found in your workspace at: > | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/missing_required.cfg > > So I'm not shure if my BSP is creating the kernel I wanna have ... > >> If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the >> two problems at once. > > This would be very nice! I really stuck here ... The BSP can be found at: > > https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20 (branch denzil) I have a clone and started a build. When I have some results .. I'll send more email. Cheers, Bruce > > Cheers, Markus > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto