* u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
@ 2013-09-13 7:56 Anders Darander
2013-09-13 17:32 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Anders Darander @ 2013-09-13 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: Otavio Salvador
Hi,
As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to compile
and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now built
using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
include:
EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being built
for my host system, and not the target...
Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that
fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to
${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting
cross.bbclass?
Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked
something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run on
the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target.
I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint on
where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross
recipe?
Cheers,
Anders
--
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
2013-09-13 7:56 u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross Anders Darander
@ 2013-09-13 17:32 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 17:58 ` Hans Beckerus
2013-09-13 18:55 ` Anders Darander
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2013-09-13 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer, Otavio Salvador
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
Right.
> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to compile
> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
>
> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now built
> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
> include:
> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for
use in target as well (or help you to do it).
> What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being built
> for my host system, and not the target...
Yes; the way to proper package it for target is from u-boot itself,
not on this recipe.
> Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that
> fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to
> ${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting
> cross.bbclass?
>
> Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked
> something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run on
> the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target.
>
> I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint on
> where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross
> recipe?
No, you are right. I can help you to solve it (or solve it and send
you the solution) if you want.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
2013-09-13 17:32 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2013-09-13 17:58 ` Hans Beckerus
2013-09-13 18:35 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 18:55 ` Anders Darander
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Hans Beckerus @ 2013-09-13 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On 2013-09-13 7:32, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
>> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
>> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
>> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
> Right.
>
>> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to compile
>> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
>>
>> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now built
>> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
>> include:
>> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
>> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
> Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for
> use in target as well (or help you to do it).
Honestly I do not understand this change at all? fw_printenv typically
*always* executes on the target since it dumps the contents of the
U-boot environment from a shell. Why would you want to build it for the
host? That does not make sense. Unless host is the same as your target
which I doubt could be considered the normal case, or?
Thanks.
Hans
>> What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being built
>> for my host system, and not the target...
> Yes; the way to proper package it for target is from u-boot itself,
> not on this recipe.
>
>> Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that
>> fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to
>> ${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting
>> cross.bbclass?
>>
>> Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked
>> something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run on
>> the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target.
>>
>> I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint on
>> where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross
>> recipe?
> No, you are right. I can help you to solve it (or solve it and send
> you the solution) if you want.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
2013-09-13 17:58 ` Hans Beckerus
@ 2013-09-13 18:35 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2013-09-13 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans Beckerus; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Hans Beckerus <hans.beckerus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-09-13 7:32, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
>>> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
>>> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to compile
>>> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
>>>
>>> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now built
>>> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
>>> include:
>>> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
>>> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
>>
>> Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for
>> use in target as well (or help you to do it).
>
> Honestly I do not understand this change at all? fw_printenv typically
> *always* executes on the target since it dumps the contents of the U-boot
> environment from a shell. Why would you want to build it for the host? That
> does not make sense. Unless host is the same as your target which I doubt
> could be considered the normal case, or?
It depends on how do you intend to use this. It can be used to mangle
environment during image processing.
I will cook a patch and send for testing, so we get target ones back.
Regards,
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
2013-09-13 17:32 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 17:58 ` Hans Beckerus
@ 2013-09-13 18:55 ` Anders Darander
2013-09-13 19:16 ` Otavio Salvador
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Anders Darander @ 2013-09-13 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander
><anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
>> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
>> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
>> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
>
>Right.
>
>> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to
>compile
>> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
>>
>> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now
>built
>> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
>> include:
>> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
>> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
>
>Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for
>use in target as well (or help you to do it).
Sorry that I didn't see this during the review of your patch that made this change. If u-boot-fw-utils-cross of intended to be used on the host, why did you then replace the old u-boot-fw-utils with this recipe?
The old u-boot-fw-utils were to create fw_printenv to be used on the _target_ not on the host. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever mentioned during the patch review...
>> What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being
>built
>> for my host system, and not the target...
>
>Yes; the way to proper package it for target is from u-boot itself,
>not on this recipe.
Yep, so the commit log that makes the transition from u-boot-fw-utils to u-boot-fw-utils-cross should have mentioned that the purpose of those two packages are completely different.
>> Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that
>> fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to
>> ${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting
>> cross.bbclass?
>>
>> Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked
>> something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run
>on
>> the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target.
>>
>> I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint
>on
>> where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross
>> recipe?
>
>No, you are right. I can help you to solve it (or solve it and send
>you the solution) if you want.
I've got a working u-boot-fw-utils recipe that I can submit. I'll look into this on Monday morning, to ensure that it's of enough quality to publish.
Just curious, what use case do you have for fw_* the build host?
Cheers,
Anders
--
ChargeStorm AB / eStorm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
2013-09-13 18:55 ` Anders Darander
@ 2013-09-13 19:16 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 19:29 ` Anders Darander
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2013-09-13 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anders Darander; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander
>><anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
>>> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
>>> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
>>> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
>>
>>Right.
>>
>>> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to
>>compile
>>> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
>>>
>>> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now
>>built
>>> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
>>> include:
>>> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
>>> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
>>
>>Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for
>>use in target as well (or help you to do it).
>
> Sorry that I didn't see this during the review of your patch that made this change. If u-boot-fw-utils-cross of intended to be used on the host, why did you then replace the old u-boot-fw-utils with this recipe?
>
> The old u-boot-fw-utils were to create fw_printenv to be used on the _target_ not on the host. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever mentioned during the patch review...
Yes but this was a /bug/ in the build system. As it got HOSTCC so it
was indeed to be used as /host/ not target.
>>> What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being
>>built
>>> for my host system, and not the target...
>>
>>Yes; the way to proper package it for target is from u-boot itself,
>>not on this recipe.
>
> Yep, so the commit log that makes the transition from u-boot-fw-utils to u-boot-fw-utils-cross should have mentioned that the purpose of those two packages are completely different.
Right; I might not been clear on this.
>>> Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that
>>> fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to
>>> ${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting
>>> cross.bbclass?
>>>
>>> Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked
>>> something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run
>>on
>>> the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target.
>>>
>>> I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint
>>on
>>> where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross
>>> recipe?
>>
>>No, you are right. I can help you to solve it (or solve it and send
>>you the solution) if you want.
>
> I've got a working u-boot-fw-utils recipe that I can submit. I'll look into this on Monday morning, to ensure that it's of enough quality to publish.
Ahh neat! So please e-mail me and I help to clean it.
> Just curious, what use case do you have for fw_* the build host?
So we can mangle environment per image ;-)
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross
2013-09-13 19:16 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2013-09-13 19:29 ` Anders Darander
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Anders Darander @ 2013-09-13 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
* Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> [130913 21:16]:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
> > Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >>On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander
> >><anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
> >>> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the
> >>> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to
> >>> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition.
> >>Right.
> >>> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to
> >>compile
> >>> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine.
> >>> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now
> >>built
> >>> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to
> >>> include:
> >>> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"'
> >>> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC.
> >>Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for
> >>use in target as well (or help you to do it).
> > Sorry that I didn't see this during the review of your patch that made this change. If u-boot-fw-utils-cross of intended to be used on the host, why did you then replace the old u-boot-fw-utils with this recipe?
> > The old u-boot-fw-utils were to create fw_printenv to be used on the _target_ not on the host. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever mentioned during the patch review...
> Yes but this was a /bug/ in the build system. As it got HOSTCC so it
> was indeed to be used as /host/ not target.
Well, the fw_printenv is indeed mainly intended to be used on target...
Why the U-Boot maintainers insist on defaulting to use HOSTCC is a
completely different matter. I know that there's been quite a few mail
threads about that (and I've personally argued on this matter in at
least one of those threads). Thus, I don't agree with you that it was a
bug in the original recipe.
I'm doing the same thing in my patch, as I prefer to do it that way
instead of patching the Makefile.
> >>> What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being
> >>built
> >>> for my host system, and not the target...
> >>Yes; the way to proper package it for target is from u-boot itself,
> >>not on this recipe.
> > Yep, so the commit log that makes the transition from u-boot-fw-utils to u-boot-fw-utils-cross should have mentioned that the purpose of those two packages are completely different.
> Right; I might not been clear on this.
> >>> Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that
> >>> fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to
> >>> ${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting
> >>> cross.bbclass?
> >>> Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked
> >>> something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run
> >>on
> >>> the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target.
> >>> I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint
> >>on
> >>> where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross
> >>> recipe?
> >>No, you are right. I can help you to solve it (or solve it and send
> >>you the solution) if you want.
> > I've got a working u-boot-fw-utils recipe that I can submit. I'll look into this on Monday morning, to ensure that it's of enough quality to publish.
> Ahh neat! So please e-mail me and I help to clean it.
I've made a quick clean-up and submitted a patch a few moments ago.
Hopefully, I might have some review comments by Monday, which hopefully
could get the patch to a mergeable state during Monday / Tuesday.
> > Just curious, what use case do you have for fw_* the build host?
> So we can mangle environment per image ;-)
Ok. I've never tried to do that using these tools. The only times I've
created env-images, I've been using an old TCL script based on the one
Atmel supplies in their SAM-BA tool...
Cheers,
Anders
--
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB Tel: +46 702 44 84 36
Laxholmstorget 3 Email: anders@chargestorm.se
602 21 Norrköping Web: www.chargestorm.se
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-09-13 19:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-09-13 7:56 u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross Anders Darander
2013-09-13 17:32 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 17:58 ` Hans Beckerus
2013-09-13 18:35 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 18:55 ` Anders Darander
2013-09-13 19:16 ` Otavio Salvador
2013-09-13 19:29 ` Anders Darander
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.