* [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