* 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.