On 13-08-08 8:38 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 13-08-08 02:04 AM, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>> On 08/07/13 19:23, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 13-08-07 12:31 PM, martiert@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Bruce, have you had the opportunity to look at this yet?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was about to email on this. I was out of the office last week, but
>>> was just starting on this last night.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>> Great. Thanks for the help btw. It is greatly appreciated. I'm kind of
>> stuck on what I have done wrong on this one.
>
> Understood. I'm bumping this up to my list and have started a test build.

I've sorted this out. You didn't do anything wrong, outside of not
defining a BSP description for the board you are building.

I've had a patch queued for 1.5 that would have detected this mismatch
and adapted, but that change is held up on the 3.10 kernel and some
other changes .. but I digress.

This also should have been in the docs, since it is what the yocto-bsp
tool generates for new BSPs. But it's probably not obvious enough, and
with my pending patches, that should be ok .. but I digress again.

What basically happened is that the atom-pc BSP description was picked
to match your pandaboard build. That's why you see the different 
architecture
and what looks like an ignored defconfig. The tools will shortly
generate you a skeleton config, but for now, you need to define your
own that will be found and used.

I've attached a patch that does just that, and when I configured,
everything was applied properly.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> - Martin
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto