[Buildroot] Buildroot for AVR32

[Buildroot] Buildroot for AVR32

[Ulf Samuelsson]

Have been working on getting the AVR32 core supported in buildroot.
Is also lobbying for Atmel to adopt buildroot as its standard way of supporting this chip architecture.

What is the easiest way to proceed to have the AVR32 fixes integrated into the main build?

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Jonathan Dumaresq]

Hi all,

I just try to get buildroot (from atmel site) build for the avr32. I would like to know if i should the latest (from the svn) or use the one from atmel. ?

I have also another question. On my rootfs, i will need (if possible) to have a graphics web browser on a NGW100 board connected to an lcd. I have seen some browser build on top of gtk+ library. I would like to know if this is include in the avr32 port of buildroot ?

regards

Jonathan Dumaresq
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20070824/972c568d/attachment.htm 

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

Hi Jonathan,

   I'm using the svn buildroot with avr32, and I'm running into my
fair share of issues, so I guess the Atmel snapshot might be a safer
bet. But I really don't like that they have removed the .svn folders
from the package, making it a lot harder to get updates from the
buildroot guys. Well, svn is catching up quite rapidly, and I have
been able to build what I needed so far. I have never built GTK+
thought.

   I have recently managed to merge the Atmel snapshot with svn to
some extent. But I haven't gone thru the resulting patch to sort out
what should be submitted and what should be discarded.

Cheers,
    Thiago A. Correa


On 8/24/07, Jonathan Dumaresq <jdumaresq@cimeq.qc.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just try to get buildroot (from atmel site) build for the avr32. I would
> like to know if i should the latest (from the svn) or use the one from
> atmel. ?
>
> I have also another question. On my rootfs, i will need (if possible) to
> have a graphics web browser on a NGW100 board connected to an lcd. I have
> seen some browser build on top of gtk+ library. I would like to know if this
> is include in the avr32 port of buildroot ?
>
> regards
>
> Jonathan Dumaresq
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Jonathan Dumaresq]

I'll apreciate your reply. I'm in the descision to use one or the other. 
It's not so easy for me to choose one or the other. I like to speed that 
patch are build and added to the buildroot project. The people that work in 
this project are very implicated and active. My knowlede are not too big is 
te construction of rootfs. So i'm not very familliar to all the process. I'm 
more at the linux user level thant developper level.

For the GTK, i have seen some package build for the AVR32. So i'm pretty 
sure this can be done.

http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/repo/?action=details&pnm=gtk%2B

it's the link from where i see it.

hope this help

Jonathan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thiago A. Corr?a" <thiago.correa@gmail.com>
To: "Jonathan Dumaresq" <jdumaresq@cimeq.qc.ca>
Cc: <buildroot@uclibc.org>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] buildroot for avr32


> Hi Jonathan,
>
>   I'm using the svn buildroot with avr32, and I'm running into my
> fair share of issues, so I guess the Atmel snapshot might be a safer
> bet. But I really don't like that they have removed the .svn folders
> from the package, making it a lot harder to get updates from the
> buildroot guys. Well, svn is catching up quite rapidly, and I have
> been able to build what I needed so far. I have never built GTK+
> thought.
>
>   I have recently managed to merge the Atmel snapshot with svn to
> some extent. But I haven't gone thru the resulting patch to sort out
> what should be submitted and what should be discarded.
>
> Cheers,
>    Thiago A. Correa
>
>
> On 8/24/07, Jonathan Dumaresq <jdumaresq@cimeq.qc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just try to get buildroot (from atmel site) build for the avr32. I 
>> would
>> like to know if i should the latest (from the svn) or use the one from
>> atmel. ?
>>
>> I have also another question. On my rootfs, i will need (if possible) to
>> have a graphics web browser on a NGW100 board connected to an lcd. I have
>> seen some browser build on top of gtk+ library. I would like to know if 
>> this
>> is include in the avr32 port of buildroot ?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Jonathan Dumaresq
>> _______________________________________________
>> buildroot mailing list
>> buildroot at uclibc.org
>> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>>
> 

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 14:59 +0100, Thiago A. Corr?a wrote:
>    I'm using the svn buildroot with avr32, and I'm running into my
> fair share of issues, so I guess the Atmel snapshot might be a safer
> bet. But I really don't like that they have removed the .svn folders
> from the package, making it a lot harder to get updates from the
> buildroot guys. Well, svn is catching up quite rapidly, and I have
> been able to build what I needed so far. I have never built GTK+
> thought.

I plan to put out a GIT-repository somewhere soon. There will be an
upstream branch with the snapshots from Buildroot and a master branch
which will hold whatever extra changes that are done for AVR32. Very
similar to how the Linux kernel for AVR32 is available.

Making diffs should be very simple if you are custom with GIT.

>    I have recently managed to merge the Atmel snapshot with svn to
> some extent. But I haven't gone thru the resulting patch to sort out
> what should be submitted and what should be discarded.

The current Atmel snapshot is held at the current stage to get a stable
base for the initial release. We try to put back the general changes
upstream, and fiddle as little as possible away from upstream.

-- 
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Jonathan Dumaresq]

Hi all,

I would like to know how to customize the kernel when i build the buildroot
for avr32 ?

 make ARCH=avr32 CROSS_COMPILE=avr32-linux- menuconfig

under the linux folder don't seam to work.

Jonathan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hans-Christian Egtvedt" <hcegtvedt@atmel.com>
To: "Thiago A. Corr?a" <thiago.correa@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Dumaresq" <jdumaresq@cimeq.qc.ca>; <buildroot@uclibc.org>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] buildroot for avr32


> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 14:59 +0100, Thiago A. Corr?a wrote:
>>    I'm using the svn buildroot with avr32, and I'm running into my
>> fair share of issues, so I guess the Atmel snapshot might be a safer
>> bet. But I really don't like that they have removed the .svn folders
>> from the package, making it a lot harder to get updates from the
>> buildroot guys. Well, svn is catching up quite rapidly, and I have
>> been able to build what I needed so far. I have never built GTK+
>> thought.
>
> I plan to put out a GIT-repository somewhere soon. There will be an
> upstream branch with the snapshots from Buildroot and a master branch
> which will hold whatever extra changes that are done for AVR32. Very
> similar to how the Linux kernel for AVR32 is available.
>
> Making diffs should be very simple if you are custom with GIT.
>
>>    I have recently managed to merge the Atmel snapshot with svn to
>> some extent. But I haven't gone thru the resulting patch to sort out
>> what should be submitted and what should be discarded.
>
> The current Atmel snapshot is held at the current stage to get a stable
> base for the initial release. We try to put back the general changes
> upstream, and fiddle as little as possible away from upstream.
>
> -- 
> With kind regards,
> Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer
> 

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 03:06:21PM -0400, Jonathan Dumaresq wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I would like to know how to customize the kernel when i build the buildroot
>for avr32 ?
>
> make ARCH=avr32 CROSS_COMPILE=avr32-linux- menuconfig

Did you see and read docs/README ?

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Jonathan Dumaresq]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bernhard Fischer" <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
To: "Jonathan Dumaresq" <jdumaresq@cimeq.qc.ca>
Cc: <buildroot@uclibc.org>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] buildroot for avr32


> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 03:06:21PM -0400, Jonathan Dumaresq wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I would like to know how to customize the kernel when i build the 
>>buildroot
>>for avr32 ?
>>
>> make ARCH=avr32 CROSS_COMPILE=avr32-linux- menuconfig
>
> Did you see and read docs/README ?
>

Yeah i have read it. But they have reference about busybox and uclibc
customisation. I have found a way a doing it. I just do

make ARCH=avr32 menuconfig

and it work.

i juste have to manualy copy the .config to save it before doing a make
clean etc...

Jonathan 

[Buildroot] buildroot for avr32

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:17:48AM -0400, Jonathan Dumaresq wrote:
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Bernhard Fischer" <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
>To: "Jonathan Dumaresq" <jdumaresq@cimeq.qc.ca>
>Cc: <buildroot@uclibc.org>
>Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Buildroot] buildroot for avr32
>
>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 03:06:21PM -0400, Jonathan Dumaresq wrote:
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I would like to know how to customize the kernel when i build the 
>>>buildroot
>>>for avr32 ?
>>>
>>> make ARCH=avr32 CROSS_COMPILE=avr32-linux- menuconfig
>>
>> Did you see and read docs/README ?
>>
>
>Yeah i have read it. But they have reference about busybox and uclibc
>customisation. I have found a way a doing it. I just do
>
>make ARCH=avr32 menuconfig

This means that you didn't read it, fwiw. *shrug*

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[David Collier]

Hi - we have a design based on the AVR32.

Historically Atmel provided a "special-buildroot-for-AVR32". Trouble is
their only AVR32 that ran Linux is now end-of-life, and I'm not sure they
have any interest.

The last version of it I can find is based on a buildroot that is 2 years
out of date.

So the question is - should I be able to use "standard buildroot" with an
AVR32 - or was Atmel adding some magic of their own that has not been
back-ported to the main trunk?

TVM

David

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear David Collier,

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), David Collier
wrote:

> Hi - we have a design based on the AVR32.

Aaah great!

> Historically Atmel provided a "special-buildroot-for-AVR32". Trouble is
> their only AVR32 that ran Linux is now end-of-life, and I'm not sure they
> have any interest.
> 
> The last version of it I can find is based on a buildroot that is 2 years
> out of date.
> 
> So the question is - should I be able to use "standard buildroot" with an
> AVR32 - or was Atmel adding some magic of their own that has not been
> back-ported to the main trunk?

Good to see someone using AVR32. We've been wondering what to do with
our AVR32 support, because not many people have been using it.

Normally, we have a working AVR32 setup, with certainly old versions of
uClibc, binutils and gdb. I was told by AVR32 people that upgrading to
uClibc 0.9.33 should work, but there are a few missing system calls in
the AVR32 upstream kernel. If you are interested, we can look at this
together, as I lack AVR32 hardware to dive into this.

So, I would definitely be interested if you could try out the mainline
Buildroot, and report what the problems are (if any), and we'll see how
to move from here.

Of course, if you are aware of the availability for AVR32 of a more
recent gcc than the 4.2.x we're using and a more recent binutils than
the 2.18 we're using, we're interested as well.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Bjørn Forsman]

On 29 November 2012 11:20, David Collier <from_buildroot@dexdyne.com> wrote:

> Hi - we have a design based on the AVR32.
>
> Historically Atmel provided a "special-buildroot-for-AVR32". Trouble is
> their only AVR32 that ran Linux is now end-of-life, and I'm not sure they
> have any interest.
>
> The last version of it I can find is based on a buildroot that is 2 years
> out of date.
>
> So the question is - should I be able to use "standard buildroot" with an
> AVR32 - or was Atmel adding some magic of their own that has not been
> back-ported to the main trunk?
>

I'm not sure what Atmel put in their Buildroot fork, but we've been using
mainline buildroot 2010.08 for one of our AVR32 projects. The only thing
needed to make that version build (I think) is to apply this commit:

http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/commit/?id=96652637ccfd94442224019c54341bf86094366a

But right now I'm actually in the process of switching that project over to
using an ARM device ;-)

Best regards,
Bj?rn Forsman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20121129/d749267f/attachment-0001.html>

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Simon Dawson]

Hi David, Thomas.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), David Collier
> So the question is - should I be able to use "standard buildroot" with an
> AVR32 - or was Atmel adding some magic of their own that has not been
> back-ported to the main trunk?

On 29 November 2012 10:37, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Normally, we have a working AVR32 setup, with certainly old versions of
> uClibc, binutils and gdb. I was told by AVR32 people that upgrading to
> uClibc 0.9.33 should work, but there are a few missing system calls in
> the AVR32 upstream kernel. If you are interested, we can look at this
> together, as I lack AVR32 hardware to dive into this.

I'm using mainline Buildroot for a custom board that is based on the
Atmel NGW100 board, with an ap7000 processor. I haven't had any major
problems; I've had to patch the 3.6.x mainline kernel to get the board
to boot from SD card --- I'm not using any Atmel kernel patches.

I'd be very interested in helping with the migration to uClibc 0.9.33.

Simon.

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm using mainline Buildroot for a custom board that is based on the
> Atmel NGW100 board, with an ap7000 processor. I haven't had any major
> problems; I've had to patch the 3.6.x mainline kernel to get the board
> to boot from SD card --- I'm not using any Atmel kernel patches.
>

Same here. I think our u-boot is from atmel, the rest is mainline,
including buildroot. Haven't tried any new buildroot releases thou. We
have moved to ARM but we still have several AVR32's in the field.

Kind Regards,
     Thiago A. Correa

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[David Collier]

In article
<CAEYzJUFwwAQnBu3opGyLKkpmc98FJL-rfvndtuPns4rATx8A7w@mail.gmail.com>,
bjorn.forsman at gmail.com (Bj?rn Forsman) wrote:

> I'm not sure what Atmel put in their Buildroot fork, but we've been 
> using
> mainline buildroot 2010.08 for one of our AVR32 projects.

I'm not sure what Atmel put in their Buildroot fork, but we've been using
mainline buildroot 2010.08 for one of our AVR32 projects.

yes indeed. That's what's in their buildroot.

I was provoked into this by the fact that on another board I have openVPN
2.1_rc11 , whereas the one on my AVR32 board is 2.0.9

One insists on a particular line in the config file before running user
scripts, and the other won't tolerate it.

So I was hoping to upgrade to a more recent openVPN - and hoping it would
come in a more recent buildroot.

So one interesting question is - does std buildroot include OpenVPN, and
if so what revision :-)

D

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear David Collier,

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:58 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), David Collier

> So one interesting question is - does std buildroot include OpenVPN, and
> if so what revision :-)

Sure, we have OpenVPN 2.2.2.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Simon,

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:35:18 +0000, Simon Dawson wrote:

> I'd be very interested in helping with the migration to uClibc 0.9.33.

Do you know what is the status of AVR32 support in upstream gcc,
binutils and gdb?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Simon Dawson]

Hi Thomas,

On 29 Nov 2012 15:29, "Thomas Petazzoni" <
thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Do you know what is the status of AVR32 support in upstream gcc,
> binutils and gdb?

No, I don't. I suspect Atmel have all but stopped attempting to upstream
patches for the architecture, but that is pure conjecture.

Simon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20121129/5020c7ae/attachment.html>

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 29 Nov 2012 15:29, "Thomas Petazzoni"
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> Do you know what is the status of AVR32 support in upstream gcc,
>> binutils and gdb?
>
> No, I don't. I suspect Atmel have all but stopped attempting to upstream
> patches for the architecture, but that is pure conjecture.
>

I have bugged them in support ticket and even in public forum which
they keep in avrfreaks.net before the EOL announcement.
The answer was that they would after finishing porting their patches
to gcc 3.4.x, but I guess they never did.

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Thiago A. Corr?a,

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:10:36 -0200, Thiago A. Corr?a wrote:

> I have bugged them in support ticket and even in public forum which
> they keep in avrfreaks.net before the EOL announcement.
> The answer was that they would after finishing porting their patches
> to gcc 3.4.x, but I guess they never did.

OpenWRT has gcc 4.4.7 patches and binutils 2.21.1 patches. I've tried
them, but unfortunately ld segfaults when linking uClibc. I'll do a
quick investigation, but I don't think I want to invest too much time
in this architecture...

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Dear Thiago A. Corr?a,
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:10:36 -0200, Thiago A. Corr?a wrote:
>
>> I have bugged them in support ticket and even in public forum which
>> they keep in avrfreaks.net before the EOL announcement.
>> The answer was that they would after finishing porting their patches
>> to gcc 3.4.x, but I guess they never did.
>
> OpenWRT has gcc 4.4.7 patches and binutils 2.21.1 patches. I've tried
> them, but unfortunately ld segfaults when linking uClibc. I'll do a
> quick investigation, but I don't think I want to invest too much time
> in this architecture...
>

I'm talking from memory, because I haven't touched much of this for a while.
Back then I tried patches from them and from Atmel, but complex
software such as Qt had problems with them. They might have been
updated since, but the most stable option was the current 4.2.2.

I suspect that at some point the AVR32 support will be dropped, even
from kernel.

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Thiago A. Corr?a,

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:25:23 -0200, Thiago A. Corr?a wrote:

> I'm talking from memory, because I haven't touched much of this for a while.
> Back then I tried patches from them and from Atmel, but complex
> software such as Qt had problems with them. They might have been
> updated since, but the most stable option was the current 4.2.2.
> 
> I suspect that at some point the AVR32 support will be dropped, even
> from kernel.

Ok, so your suggestion is to just maintain the AVR32 support in
Buildroot as is, and not spend time improving it. Is that correct?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Buildroot for avr32

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, so your suggestion is to just maintain the AVR32 support in
> Buildroot as is, and not spend time improving it. Is that correct?
>

Actually I was trying not to suggest that, while trying to inform of
my past experience that might help somehow. I had edited the message a
few times before sending :)

Clearly there are still users, I don't feel it's right by them for me
to suggest that, but I don't know what the policy will be on this
case. I mean, gcc patches probably will not be accepted mainstream,
and I have a hard time believing someone will put in the effort after
Atmel droped the ball. It's also not realistic to expect buildroot, qt
or the kernel to carry that support indefinetly.

So, I guess what I'm saying is: I'm sure we would all appreciate if
the support can be improved, but if it's not possible, at least kept
for a while.

Althought you haven't said it, I believe you wish to drop the old gcc
options, and the avr32 toolchain is in the way.