Problem with BSP supporting different machines

Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Markus Hubig]

Hi @all,

I'm having some trouble building a BSP supporting two different machines.
The machines in question are the Stamp9g20 and PortuxG20 from taskit. These
machines are just slightly different course the PortuxG20 is basically just
a small SBC built around the Stamp9G20.

You can have a look at my BSP here: http://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20
but take attention that you're selecting the denzil branch...

If I set MACHINE = stamp9g20 in local.conf all went fine, but with
MACHINE = portuxg20 I get a kernel for common-pc instead of
arm-versatile-926ejs ...

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 ...

Please can someone have a look? ;-)

Cheers, Markus

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Markus Hubig <mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
> Hi @all,
>
> I'm having some trouble building a BSP supporting two different machines.
> The machines in question are the Stamp9g20 and PortuxG20 from taskit. These
> machines are just slightly different course the PortuxG20 is basically just
> a small SBC built around the Stamp9G20.
>
> You can have a look at my BSP here: http://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20
> but take attention that you're selecting the denzil branch...
>
> If I set MACHINE = stamp9g20 in local.conf all went fine, but with
> MACHINE = portuxg20 I get a kernel for common-pc instead of
> arm-versatile-926ejs ...
>
> 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 ...
>
> Please can someone have a look? ;-)

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.

If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
two problems at
once.

Bruce

>
> Cheers, Markus
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Markus Hubig]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:48:30AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Markus Hubig <mhubig@imko.de> wrote:

<snip>

> > 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)

Cheers, Markus

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Bruce Ashfield]

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<mhubig@imko.de>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 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

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-08-09 01:24 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> 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<mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> 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

That's not all that bad for a first cut, that last "0" report is
also fine, since nothing uses the "required" tag in denzil.

>> | 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.

Aha. yes, I knew this looked familiar. It's a fall out from the old
branch based triggers for the tools. Your BSP is configuring properly,
the report just isn't all that useful.

It is (largely) fixed by this commit to the kern tools:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-kernel-tools/commit/?id=4b5dd4d5b541ff98110e8b58f6d33923893e0950

Porting this to denzil .. may be possible, and I can give it a try,
but I can't drag back all of the kern-tools enhancements, and many
of the changes depend on associated changes in other scripts.

If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
ignoring it).

Was this BSP generating using the tooling, or by hand ?

Cheers,

Bruce


>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> Cheers, Markus
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Markus Hubig]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:10:36PM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-08-09 01:24 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >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<mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>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
> 
> That's not all that bad for a first cut, that last "0" report is
> also fine, since nothing uses the "required" tag in denzil.

Hmm ok ...

> >>>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.
> 
> Aha. yes, I knew this looked familiar. It's a fall out from the old
> branch based triggers for the tools. Your BSP is configuring properly,
> the report just isn't all that useful.
> 
> It is (largely) fixed by this commit to the kern tools:
> 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-kernel-tools/commit/?id=4b5dd4d5b541ff98110e8b58f6d33923893e0950
> 
> Porting this to denzil .. may be possible, and I can give it a try,
> but I can't drag back all of the kern-tools enhancements, and many
> of the changes depend on associated changes in other scripts.

Hmm no it's fine. I switched to 1.3_M3 and run a test build at the moment,
to give it a try ... (Hmm I actually didn't know if this commit is included
in the kernel 3.2 the 1.3_M3 branch uses ... )

Hmm just switching to the 1.3_M3 branch doesn't solve the warning, instead
the kernel build failed with error:

| DEBUG: Executing shell function do_kernel_configme
| [INFO] doing kernel configme
| [INFO] Configuring target/machine combo: "standard/portuxg20"
| [INFO] collecting configs in ./meta/meta-series
|   [##################################################]  (completed in 4 seconds)
| ERROR: could not sanitize configuration fragments
|    errors are logged in meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log
| ERROR: Function failed: do_kernel_configme (see poky/build/tmp/work/\
|  portuxg20-poky-linux-gnueabi/linux-yocto-3.2.18+git1+ \
|  486f7aec824b4127e91ef53228823e996b3696f0_1+\
|  7cc31a952f78b8f8e8469eed93c23e9675a8eeb5-r4.0.1/temp/ \
|  log.do_kernel_configme.12375 for further information)

I checked at meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log and found this:

| ...
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/fuse/fuse.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/ktypes/standard/standard.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/devtmpfs.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/debugfs.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
| [ERROR] Kern frag  does not exist

Hmm strange ... Now I cloned the tzanussi/yocto-bsp-master-update branch
from pocky-contrib (since I read the patch request from tzanussi on the ML)
and looked what his yocto-bsp script did.

The main difference I spotted was in stamp9g20-standard.scc

| define KMACHINE stamp9g20
| define KTYPE standard
| define KARCH arm
|
| include ktypes/standard
|-branch stamp9g20
|
| include stamp9g20.scc

But removing the branch statement didn't change the error (on the 1.3_M3
branch) so I switched to using the shine new 3.4 kernel.

But -> same error! OK maybe the 1.3_M3 is not that stable at all, so back
to denzil and 3.2. But with the branch statement removed ...

Damn now I hit another strange error:

| arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-ld: cannot find -lgcc
| make: *** [u-boot] Error 1
| ERROR: oe_runmake failed

See https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20/changeset/ebf8f19ea1932e1b6ed33e549023be44618481e7
for further details ...

And the warnings 'still stays on' ...

> If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
> warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
> ignoring it).

To do this I had to make some modification to my linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
file, like this, right?

|  COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"
| -KBRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs"
| +KBRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
| +YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
|  KMACHINE_stamp9g20  = "stamp9g20"

But do I need to set a YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20?

> Was this BSP generating using the tooling, or by hand ?

Initially I tried to build one by hand but then I learned about the yocto-bsp
so I created the BSP with the tool and included my modifications.

Cheers, Markus

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Markus Hubig <mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:10:36PM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-08-09 01:24 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> >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<mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>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
>>
>> That's not all that bad for a first cut, that last "0" report is
>> also fine, since nothing uses the "required" tag in denzil.
>
> Hmm ok ...
>
>> >>>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.
>>
>> Aha. yes, I knew this looked familiar. It's a fall out from the old
>> branch based triggers for the tools. Your BSP is configuring properly,
>> the report just isn't all that useful.
>>
>> It is (largely) fixed by this commit to the kern tools:
>>
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-kernel-tools/commit/?id=4b5dd4d5b541ff98110e8b58f6d33923893e0950
>>
>> Porting this to denzil .. may be possible, and I can give it a try,
>> but I can't drag back all of the kern-tools enhancements, and many
>> of the changes depend on associated changes in other scripts.
>
> Hmm no it's fine. I switched to 1.3_M3 and run a test build at the moment,
> to give it a try ... (Hmm I actually didn't know if this commit is included
> in the kernel 3.2 the 1.3_M3 branch uses ... )
>
> Hmm just switching to the 1.3_M3 branch doesn't solve the warning, instead
> the kernel build failed with error:
>
> | DEBUG: Executing shell function do_kernel_configme
> | [INFO] doing kernel configme
> | [INFO] Configuring target/machine combo: "standard/portuxg20"
> | [INFO] collecting configs in ./meta/meta-series
> |   [##################################################]  (completed in 4 seconds)
> | ERROR: could not sanitize configuration fragments
> |    errors are logged in meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log
> | ERROR: Function failed: do_kernel_configme (see poky/build/tmp/work/\
> |  portuxg20-poky-linux-gnueabi/linux-yocto-3.2.18+git1+ \
> |  486f7aec824b4127e91ef53228823e996b3696f0_1+\
> |  7cc31a952f78b8f8e8469eed93c23e9675a8eeb5-r4.0.1/temp/ \
> |  log.do_kernel_configme.12375 for further information)
>
> I checked at meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log and found this:
>
> | ...
> | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/fuse/fuse.cfg
> | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/ktypes/standard/standard.cfg
> | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/devtmpfs.cfg
> | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/debugfs.cfg
> | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
> | [ERROR] Kern frag  does not exist
>
> Hmm strange ... Now I cloned the tzanussi/yocto-bsp-master-update branch
> from pocky-contrib (since I read the patch request from tzanussi on the ML)
> and looked what his yocto-bsp script did.

That is interesting. I means something was detected as a configuration
fragment ...
that wasn't, or didn't get migrated to the source tree. I can
reproduce this with the
layer that you provided before ?

>
> The main difference I spotted was in stamp9g20-standard.scc
>
> | define KMACHINE stamp9g20
> | define KTYPE standard
> | define KARCH arm
> |
> | include ktypes/standard
> |-branch stamp9g20
> |
> | include stamp9g20.scc
>
> But removing the branch statement didn't change the error (on the 1.3_M3
> branch) so I switched to using the shine new 3.4 kernel.
>
> But -> same error! OK maybe the 1.3_M3 is not that stable at all, so back
> to denzil and 3.2. But with the branch statement removed ...

That really is strange, Tom and I have both tested this recently. I'll need to
take another look.

>
> Damn now I hit another strange error:
>
> | arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-ld: cannot find -lgcc
> | make: *** [u-boot] Error 1
> | ERROR: oe_runmake failed
>
> See https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20/changeset/ebf8f19ea1932e1b6ed33e549023be44618481e7
> for further details ...
>
> And the warnings 'still stays on' ...
>
>> If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
>> warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
>> ignoring it).
>
> To do this I had to make some modification to my linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> file, like this, right?
>
> |  COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"
> | -KBRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs"
> | +KBRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
> | +YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
> |  KMACHINE_stamp9g20  = "stamp9g20"
>
> But do I need to set a YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20?

In 3.2 you would. I'm out of the office today, but you shouldn't still
be seeing errors
with master or with 3.2.

I'll do a complete build of your machine to see if bugs crept in.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
>> Was this BSP generating using the tooling, or by hand ?
>
> Initially I tried to build one by hand but then I learned about the yocto-bsp
> so I created the BSP with the tool and included my modifications.
>
> Cheers, Markus
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"

Re: Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Markus Hubig]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:50:00PM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Markus Hubig <mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:10:36PM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >> On 12-08-09 01:24 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >> >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<mhubig@imko.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm just switching to the 1.3_M3 branch doesn't solve the warning, instead
> > the kernel build failed with error:
> >
> > | DEBUG: Executing shell function do_kernel_configme
> > | [INFO] doing kernel configme
> > | [INFO] Configuring target/machine combo: "standard/portuxg20"
> > | [INFO] collecting configs in ./meta/meta-series
> > |   [##################################################]  (completed in 4 seconds)
> > | ERROR: could not sanitize configuration fragments
> > |    errors are logged in meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log
> > | ERROR: Function failed: do_kernel_configme (see poky/build/tmp/work/\
> > |  portuxg20-poky-linux-gnueabi/linux-yocto-3.2.18+git1+ \
> > |  486f7aec824b4127e91ef53228823e996b3696f0_1+\
> > |  7cc31a952f78b8f8e8469eed93c23e9675a8eeb5-r4.0.1/temp/ \
> > |  log.do_kernel_configme.12375 for further information)
> >
> > I checked at meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log and found this:
> >
> > | ...
> > | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/fuse/fuse.cfg
> > | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/ktypes/standard/standard.cfg
> > | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/devtmpfs.cfg
> > | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/debugfs.cfg
> > | [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
> > | [ERROR] Kern frag  does not exist
> >
> > Hmm strange ... Now I cloned the tzanussi/yocto-bsp-master-update branch
> > from pocky-contrib (since I read the patch request from tzanussi on the ML)
> > and looked what his yocto-bsp script did.
> 
> That is interesting. I means something was detected as a configuration
> fragment ...

| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
              Something get's crippled here!

> that wasn't, or didn't get migrated to the source tree. I can
> reproduce this with the layer that you provided before ?

Yes, but please pull bevor. I have two branches now 1.3_M3 and denzil.
I got this error with 1.3_M3 (both poky and my bsp) and linux 3.2 & 3.4.

> >
> > The main difference I spotted was in stamp9g20-standard.scc
> >
> > | define KMACHINE stamp9g20
> > | define KTYPE standard
> > | define KARCH arm
> > |
> > | include ktypes/standard
> > |-branch stamp9g20
> > |
> > | include stamp9g20.scc
> >
> > But removing the branch statement didn't change the error (on the 1.3_M3
> > branch) so I switched to using the shine new 3.4 kernel.
> >
> > But -> same error! OK maybe the 1.3_M3 is not that stable at all, so back
> > to denzil and 3.2. But with the branch statement removed ...
> 
> That really is strange, Tom and I have both tested this recently. I'll need to
> take another look.
>
> > Damn now I hit another strange error:
> >
> > | arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-ld: cannot find -lgcc
> > | make: *** [u-boot] Error 1
> > | ERROR: oe_runmake failed
> >
> > See https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20/changeset/ebf8f19ea1932e1b6ed33e549023be44618481e7
> > for further details ...
> >
> > And the warnings 'still stays on' ...
> >
> >> If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
> >> warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
> >> ignoring it).
> >
> > To do this I had to make some modification to my linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
> > file, like this, right?
> >
> > |  COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"
> > | -KBRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs"
> > | +KBRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
> > | +YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20  = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
> > |  KMACHINE_stamp9g20  = "stamp9g20"
> >
> > But do I need to set a YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20?
> 
> In 3.2 you would. I'm out of the office today, but you shouldn't still
> be seeing errors with master or with 3.2.
> 
> I'll do a complete build of your machine to see if bugs crept in.

Nice, Thanks!

Cheers, Markus