* Re: [PATCH v2] insane.bbclass: Added Epiphany machine definitions
[not found] ` <5519BCA9.70401@gmail.com>
@ 2015-03-30 21:21 ` Peter Saunderson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Saunderson @ 2015-03-30 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Rossi; +Cc: openembedded-core
Updated subject line.
On 30/03/15 22:14, Peter Saunderson wrote:
> On 30/03/15 03:11, Nathan Rossi wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Peter Saunderson <peteasa@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> You have [meta-oe] in your subject, I believe you are after just
>> oe-core with this patch correct?
> Yes, sorry wrong subject line. oe-core only.
>> Adding machine definitions for the epiphany
>> (http://www.adapteva.com/) chip.
>> using https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb.
>> For binutils implementation that defines TARGET_ARCH MACHINE
>> "epiphany": 4643 See
>> https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb/blob/epiphany-binutils-2.24/bfd/elf32-epiphany.c
>> Epiphany is in upstream binutils with the matching ID,
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=include/elf/common.h;h=25cfef2d6b1ae8e3f976f1e55576d0fbaff79027;hb=HEAD#l408
>>
>>
>>> For example layer that uses these defines see
>>> https://github.com/peteasa/meta-epiphany.git
>>>
>>> Epiphany cross compile is confused by package_qa_check_arch so this
>>> check is also skipped.
>>> ---
>>> meta/classes/insane.bbclass | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/insane.bbclass b/meta/classes/insane.bbclass
>>> index c6dea22..9cdb382 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/insane.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/insane.bbclass
>>> @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ def package_qa_get_machine_dict():
>>> "darwin9" : {
>>> "arm" : (40, 0, 0,
>>> True, 32),
>>> },
>>> + "e-os" : {
>> I assume 'e-os' is short hand for 'epiphany-os'?
>>
>> Is there are reason for using e-os? I noticed in your layer that your
>> toolchains are actually target os 'elf' (e.g. epiphany-elf-gcc), in
>> which case it should be 'elf' that goes into the TARGET_OS variable.
>> This might be the reason for the issues that you see when compiling?
> Perhaps the best way to understand my need to skip the
> package_qa_check_arch is to comment out the FIXME lines for cross,
> nativesdk and cross-canadian and run bitbake. The files created with
> cross compile etc are designed to execute on one machine and produce
> run time files for another so the package_qa_check fails if you
> include the check for builds that inherit from cross, nativesdk and
> cross-canadian. Thus the FIXME for cross, nativesdk and
> cross-canadian allows gcc-cross-arm etc to build and be packaged.
>
> Now the tag e-os started as a shorthand for epiphany-os but actually
> the os of the end product in this case does not matter and should not
> be important to this check. The package_qa_check_arch check is
> designed to ensure that the right kind of file gets packaged and
> eventually installed on the end product, in this case a linux system
> running on arm. The check is not run for packages that get installed
> on linux running on x86_64 that are cross compilers for the linux arm
> system. Now with the epiphany case all the packages get installed on
> a system that they do not run on! They get installed in the poky sdk
> so that I can cross compile and create an elf file that I can download
> and run on the epiphany chip. They also get installed on the linux
> arm product and again get run eventually on the epiphany chip. So if
> the package_qa_check_arch is run on any of the packages tagged with
> e-os then it would fail because they always get installed on a
> architecture that is not compatible because the linux arm system is
> acting as a host for the epiphany system.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to re-name this tag exotic-os because any
> chip like epiphany or avr could have an entry in this group. At some
> time in the future it would be possible to implement separate checks
> for any of these exotic packages, however I am not sure that there is
> value in spending the effort.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nathan
>>
>>> + "epiphany": ( 4643, 0, 0,
>>> True, 32),
>>> + },
>>> "linux" : {
>>> "aarch64" : (183, 0, 0,
>>> True, 64),
>>> "aarch64_be" :(183, 0, 0,
>>> False, 64),
>>> @@ -445,6 +448,10 @@ def package_qa_check_arch(path,name,d, elf,
>>> messages):
>>> provides = d.getVar('PROVIDES', True)
>>> bpn = d.getVar('BPN', True)
>>>
>>> + # FIXME: epiphany cross compile confuses this check
>>> + if (target_os == 'e-os'):
>>> + return
>>> +
>>> # FIXME: Cross package confuse this check, so just skip them
>>> for s in ['cross', 'nativesdk', 'cross-canadian']:
>>> if bb.data.inherits_class(s, d):
> Try to comment these two lines out and then do a bitbake for your
> target and for the sdk and analyse the results to see the failures
> induced by including the package_qa_check_arch for gcc- cross,
> nativesdk and cross-canadian.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>>> --
>>> 2.1.0
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread