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 68017E00747 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r7U4lkpb004477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bruce-ashfields-macbook.local (128.224.21.245) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:47:45 -0700 Message-ID: <522023F0.6080609@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:47:44 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jate Sujjavanich References: <6C2434209962DC46B88345CA85C334A201CAAD7035ED@Courier.syntech.org> <521F6E10.3090704@windriver.com> <6C2434209962DC46B88345CA85C334A201CAAD7035EE@Courier.syntech.org> <521FA4C5.5010102@windriver.com> <6C2434209962DC46B88345CA85C334A201CAAD7035F2@Courier.syntech.org> In-Reply-To: <6C2434209962DC46B88345CA85C334A201CAAD7035F2@Courier.syntech.org> Cc: "'yocto@yoctoproject.org'" Subject: Re: yocto-bsp and kconf-check X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:47:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 13-08-29 5:39 PM, Jate Sujjavanich wrote: > Some additional information: I noticed that the two CONFIG's are also defined in the fragment features/usb-net/usb-net.cfg. They are defined without using the non-hardware flag. > That's could be a contributing factor, if they have their bucket changed by multiple fragments, the auditing gets harder. I'll do a run with your BSP and let you know what I find. Bruce > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:bruce.ashfield@windriver.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:45 PM >> To: Jate Sujjavanich >> Cc: 'yocto@yoctoproject.org' >> Subject: Re: [yocto] yocto-bsp and kconf-check >> >> On 13-08-29 02:56 PM, Jate Sujjavanich wrote: >>>> Which kernel version ? >>> >>> This is linux-yocto-3.8 and the dylan-9.0.0 yocto. >>> >>>> It's not about them being common or not, it's about BSPs following a >>>> base policy versus having wild, per-board behaviour. >>> >>> I've cleaned up many items from the yocto-bsp generated >>> {{machine}}.cfg that are already added by KTYPE. I have two remaining >>> warnings for CONFIG_NET and CONFIG_NETDEVICES. Nested includes >>> eventually lead to the line >>> >>> force kconf non-hardware base.cfg >>> >>> which adds those config options. I thought the non-hardware would >> prevent the specified_non_hdw.cfg warning. >> >> It should, unless there's a bug. Can you send me the steps to reproduce >> the config ? i.e. just your generated BSP layer in a .tgz should be >> enough. >> >> Bruce >> >>> >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:bruce.ashfield@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:52 AM >>>> To: Jate Sujjavanich >>>> Cc: 'yocto@yoctoproject.org' >>>> Subject: Re: [yocto] yocto-bsp and kconf-check >>>> >>>> On 13-08-29 11:36 AM, Jate Sujjavanich wrote: >>>>> It appears that the yocto-bsp script generates a kernel >>>>> configuration >>>> that creates some warnings during kern-tools' kconf_check. The >>>> {{machine}}.cfg file has many non-hardware options, therefore the >>>> script warns. >>>>> >>>>> It seems like many of these should be in the standard kernel >>>> configuration. Is this correct, and does the yocto-bsp data need to >>>> be updated? >>>> >>>> Which kernel version ? But the answer is not necessarily, if a >>>> machine config is specifying something that hasn't been tagged >>>> "hardware" or that has a specified exception, you get a warning. >>>> >>>> It's not about them being common or not, it's about BSPs following a >>>> base policy versus having wild, per-board behaviour. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Jate >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> yocto mailing list >>>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org >>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto >>>>> >>> >