From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from STOEXHUB01.domain01.net (STOEXHUB01.domain01.net [83.145.59.142]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C47B60135 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.247] (83.252.255.124) by STOEXHUB01.domain01.net (10.12.10.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:55:29 +0200 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20130913075635.GA3573@ad.chargestorm.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Anders Darander Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:55:23 +0200 To: Otavio Salvador , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Message-ID: <923730d4-0ca2-411a-97e8-17cbe043ea43@email.android.com> Subject: Re: u-boot-fw-utils -> u-boot-fw-utils-cross X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:55:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Otavio Salvador wrote: >On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Anders Darander > wrote: >> As I've started to bring our internal distro and machines up to the >> lates oe-core, I've got some issues with the u-boot-fw-utils to >> u-boot-fw-utils-cross transition. > >Right. > >> In my old branch, I used u-boot-fw-utils_2011.06. This used to >compile >> and package fw_printenv(setenv) just fine. >> >> In the new, u-boot-fw-utils-cross_2013.07.bb, fw_printenv is now >built >> using HOSTCC instead of the cross-compiler. The old recipe used to >> include: >> EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}"' >> as u-boot defaults to build everything under tools/ using HOSTC. > >Yes; this is intended to be used in the host. I can add support for >use in target as well (or help you to do it). Sorry that I didn't see this during the review of your patch that made this change. If u-boot-fw-utils-cross of intended to be used on the host, why did you then replace the old u-boot-fw-utils with this recipe? The old u-boot-fw-utils were to create fw_printenv to be used on the _target_ not on the host. Unfortunately, I don't think this was ever mentioned during the patch review... >> What's the reason for this change? Currently fw_printenv is being >built >> for my host system, and not the target... > >Yes; the way to proper package it for target is from u-boot itself, >not on this recipe. Yep, so the commit log that makes the transition from u-boot-fw-utils to u-boot-fw-utils-cross should have mentioned that the purpose of those two packages are completely different. >> Further more, fw_printenv does not get packaged. I can see that >> fw_printenv is installed in ${WORKDIR}/image, but never moved to >> ${WORKDIR}/package. I guess that this is caused by inheriting >> cross.bbclass? >> >> Am I missing something in my distro config, or have I overlooked >> something else? fw_printenv doesn't really make sense for me to run >on >> the host, and is (in my case) rather essential on the target. >> >> I guess that I'm doing something wrong; can anyone give me some hint >on >> where to look? Or do we have an issue with the u-boot-fw-utils-cross >> recipe? > >No, you are right. I can help you to solve it (or solve it and send >you the solution) if you want. I've got a working u-boot-fw-utils recipe that I can submit. I'll look into this on Monday morning, to ensure that it's of enough quality to publish. Just curious, what use case do you have for fw_* the build host? Cheers, Anders -- ChargeStorm AB / eStorm