* [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
@ 2012-03-22 15:00 Christopher Larson
2012-03-22 15:08 ` Chris Larson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Larson @ 2012-03-22 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Christopher Larson
From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
failure in the build.
To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
---
meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
@@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
-TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
# Basic tune definitions
-AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
+AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
+TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
+TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc"
--
1.7.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
2012-03-22 15:00 [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set Christopher Larson
@ 2012-03-22 15:08 ` Chris Larson
2012-03-22 15:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Chris Larson @ 2012-03-22 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Christopher Larson
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>
> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
> failure in the build.
>
> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
> ---
> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
>
> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>
> # Basic tune definitions
> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc
Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set
TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the
PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have
an opinion here?
--
Christopher Larson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
2012-03-22 15:08 ` Chris Larson
@ 2012-03-22 15:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
2012-03-22 15:27 ` Chris Larson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-03-22 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: Christopher Larson
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>
>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
>> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
>> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
>> failure in the build.
>>
>> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>> ---
>> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
>> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
>>
>> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
>> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>
>> # Basic tune definitions
>> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc
>
> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set
> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the
> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have
> an opinion here?
I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied?
-M
commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerp
index c9b2829..9f588e8 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
@@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .=
"${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-soft", "soft", "", d)}
ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in
['ppc-efd', 'ppc-efs']]}"
-PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" ,
"", "-nf", d)}"
-
-PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
-TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
+PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@['', '-nf'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU',d,1) in ['fpu-soft']]}"
+TUNE_PKGARCH_append = "${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
# Basic tune definitions
AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
2012-03-22 15:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
@ 2012-03-22 15:27 ` Chris Larson
2012-03-22 15:32 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Chris Larson @ 2012-03-22 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: McClintock Matthew-B29882,
Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Cc: Christopher Larson
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:21 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>>
>>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
>>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
>>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
>>> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
>>> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
>>> failure in the build.
>>>
>>> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>> ---
>>> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
>>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
>>> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
>>>
>>> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
>>> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>
>>> # Basic tune definitions
>>> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>>> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc
>>
>> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set
>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the
>> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have
>> an opinion here?
>
> I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied?
>
> -M
>
> commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
> Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
>
> arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
>
> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
Ah, indeed, apparently it was not. That said, it looks like your
version will end up with TUNE_PKGARCH like ppce500mc-nf, is that
correct? You know this stuff better than I do.
--
Christopher Larson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
2012-03-22 15:27 ` Chris Larson
@ 2012-03-22 15:32 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
2012-03-22 15:33 ` Chris Larson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-03-22 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882, Christopher Larson
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:21 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>>>
>>>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
>>>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
>>>> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
>>>> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
>>>> failure in the build.
>>>>
>>>> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>>> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>>> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
>>>> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
>>>>
>>>> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
>>>> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>>
>>>> # Basic tune definitions
>>>> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>>>> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
>>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
>>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc
>>>
>>> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set
>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the
>>> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have
>>> an opinion here?
>>
>> I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied?
>>
>> -M
>>
>> commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
>> Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
>> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
>>
>> arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
>>
>> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
>> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
>
> Ah, indeed, apparently it was not. That said, it looks like your
> version will end up with TUNE_PKGARCH like ppce500mc-nf, is that
> correct? You know this stuff better than I do.
Ugh. I pasted an old version of my patch the correct version is here:
commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
index c9b2829..9f588e8 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
@@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .=
"${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-soft", "soft", "", d)}
ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in
['ppc-efd', 'ppc-efs']]}"
-PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" ,
"", "-nf", d)}"
-
-PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
-TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
+PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@['', '-nf'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU',d,1) in ['fpu-soft']]}"
+TUNE_PKGARCH_append = "${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
# Basic tune definitions
AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
2012-03-22 15:32 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
@ 2012-03-22 15:33 ` Chris Larson
2012-03-22 16:38 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Chris Larson @ 2012-03-22 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: McClintock Matthew-B29882,
Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Cc: Christopher Larson
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:21 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
>> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
>>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
>>>>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
>>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
>>>>> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
>>>>> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
>>>>> failure in the build.
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
>>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
>>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>>>> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
>>>>> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
>>>>> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
>>>>>
>>>>> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
>>>>> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>>>
>>>>> # Basic tune definitions
>>>>> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>>>>> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
>>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
>>>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
>>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
>>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
>>>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
>>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set
>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the
>>>> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have
>>>> an opinion here?
>>>
>>> I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied?
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
>>> Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
>>> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
>>>
>>> arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
>>>
>>> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
>>> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
>>
>> Ah, indeed, apparently it was not. That said, it looks like your
>> version will end up with TUNE_PKGARCH like ppce500mc-nf, is that
>> correct? You know this stuff better than I do.
>
> Ugh. I pasted an old version of my patch the correct version is here:
>
> commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
> Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
>
> arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
>
> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> index c9b2829..9f588e8 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> @@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .=
> "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-soft", "soft", "", d)}
>
> ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in
> ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-efs']]}"
>
> -PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" ,
> "", "-nf", d)}"
> -
> -PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
>
> +PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@['', '-nf'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU',d,1) in ['fpu-soft']]}"
> +TUNE_PKGARCH_append = "${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
Cool, thanks. For what it's worth, oe-core folk, this has my ack, as
Mentor is going to need this fix also in the long term :)
--
Christopher Larson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set
2012-03-22 15:33 ` Chris Larson
@ 2012-03-22 16:38 ` Richard Purdie
2012-03-22 16:53 ` [PATCH] arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH Matthew McClintock
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-03-22 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882, Christopher Larson
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 08:33 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:21 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> >> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets
> >>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result,
> >>>>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their
> >>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As
> >>>>> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather
> >>>>> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS'
> >>>>> failure in the build.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and
> >>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++--
> >>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> >>>>> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> >>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> >>>>> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e
> >>>>> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
> >>>>> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # Basic tune definitions
> >>>>> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
> >>>>> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
> >>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft"
> >>>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
> >>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib"
> >>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf"
> >>>>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard"
> >>>>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}"
> >>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib"
> >>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set
> >>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the
> >>>> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have
> >>>> an opinion here?
> >>>
> >>> I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied?
> >>>
> >>> -M
> >>>
> >>> commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
> >>> Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> >>> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
> >>>
> >>> arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
> >>>
> >>> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
> >>> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> >>
> >> Ah, indeed, apparently it was not. That said, it looks like your
> >> version will end up with TUNE_PKGARCH like ppce500mc-nf, is that
> >> correct? You know this stuff better than I do.
> >
> > Ugh. I pasted an old version of my patch the correct version is here:
> >
> > commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af
> > Author: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> > Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600
> >
> > arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
> >
> > We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
> > append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> > b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> > index c9b2829..9f588e8 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> > +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
> > @@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .=
> > "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-soft", "soft", "", d)}
> >
> > ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in
> > ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-efs']]}"
> >
> > -PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" ,
> > "", "-nf", d)}"
> > -
> > -PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
> > -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
> >
> > +PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@['', '-nf'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU',d,1) in ['fpu-soft']]}"
> > +TUNE_PKGARCH_append = "${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
>
> Cool, thanks. For what it's worth, oe-core folk, this has my ack, as
> Mentor is going to need this fix also in the long term :)
d.getVar('TARGET_FPU',d,1) is not valid.
Can someone please send me a correct version of this patch! :)
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
2012-03-22 16:38 ` Richard Purdie
@ 2012-03-22 16:53 ` Matthew McClintock
2012-03-22 17:54 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Matthew McClintock @ 2012-03-22 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core, chris_larson, richard.purdie
We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
---
meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 6 ++----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
index c9b2829..c5fd6b7 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc
@@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .= "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-soft", "soft", "", d)}
ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-efs']]}"
-PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}"
-
-PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
-TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}"
+PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@['', '-nf'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['fpu-soft']]}"
+TUNE_PKGARCH_append = "${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}"
# Basic tune definitions
AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf"
--
1.7.6.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH
2012-03-22 16:53 ` [PATCH] arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH Matthew McClintock
@ 2012-03-22 17:54 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-03-22 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew McClintock; +Cc: chris_larson, openembedded-core
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:53 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just
> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com>
> ---
> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 6 ++----
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Merged to master, thanks.
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-03-22 18:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-03-22 15:00 [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set Christopher Larson
2012-03-22 15:08 ` Chris Larson
2012-03-22 15:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
2012-03-22 15:27 ` Chris Larson
2012-03-22 15:32 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
2012-03-22 15:33 ` Chris Larson
2012-03-22 16:38 ` Richard Purdie
2012-03-22 16:53 ` [PATCH] arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH Matthew McClintock
2012-03-22 17:54 ` Richard Purdie
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox