From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SAlB1-0003Y4-KA for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:47:53 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2MGcmBf016845; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:48 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16529-03; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2MGcUMO016837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:33 GMT Message-ID: <1332434311.9740.250.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:38:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1332428403-25048-1-git-send-email-kergoth@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882 , Christopher Larson Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix overly aggressive TUNE_PKGARCH set X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:47:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 08:33 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Chris Larson wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:21 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 > >> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson wrote: > >>>>> From: Christopher Larson > >>>>> > >>>>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets > >>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-. As a result, > >>>>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their > >>>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune- 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 > >>>>> --- > >>>>> 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 = "${PPCPKGARCH}" > >>>>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib" > >>>>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc > >>>> > >>>> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set > >>>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the > >>>> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have > >>>> an opinion here? > >>> > >>> I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied? > >>> > >>> -M > >>> > >>> commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af > >>> Author: Matthew McClintock > >>> Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600 > >>> > >>> arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH > >>> > >>> We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just > >>> append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock > >> > >> Ah, indeed, apparently it was not. That said, it looks like your > >> version will end up with TUNE_PKGARCH like ppce500mc-nf, is that > >> correct? You know this stuff better than I do. > > > > Ugh. I pasted an old version of my patch the correct version is here: > > > > commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af > > Author: Matthew McClintock > > Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600 > > > > arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH > > > > We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just > > append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock > > > > diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > > b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > > index c9b2829..9f588e8 100644 > > --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > > +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > > @@ -18,10 +18,8 @@ TARGET_FPU .= > > "${@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