[meta-xilinx] pmu-firmware configure failure

[Alejandro Hernandez]

Hello guys,

On 6/3/2019 7:43 PM, Jean-Francois Dagenais wrote:
> Thanks for the comeback Luca.
>
>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 03:47, Luca Ceresoli <luca at lucaceresoli.net> wrote:
>>
>> Not really I'm afraid, but I tried building a pmufw now without
>> multiconfig and it succeeds in master, thud and the shiny new
>> rel-v2019.01 branch on xilinx's github and they all succeed.
>>
>> Which commit are you using?
> v2019.1
>> Does a non-multiconfig setup work?
> Will try this tomorrow.

Multiconfig should not have anything to do with this,

I'm not exactly sure what you are running into, since I'm not able to reproduce it

but I don't see why those directories would exist, I would try cleaning as well and that will probably fix it.


Also, once we release the warrior branch, pmu-firmware should work with master and warrior (from oe-core) just fine,
and there will be a small change on the way multiconfig is setup to make it faster.

Cheers,

Alejandro

>
> In the mean time, I inspected copy_bsp.sh more carefully and it seems that commit 6aa787afce5ae454ce0a072fbf93e47e3960ada1 (and ae0d2a0989e3855d2044ab55dabc78ff35e38137 ??? ) removes lib/sw_services/xilsecure/src/xsecure_sha2_pmu.a so I am really wondering how this: https://github.com/Xilinx/embeddedsw/blob/86e2a1940f997f291ea5c1628f3c8a945133f100/lib/sw_apps/zynqmp_pmufw/misc/copy_bsp.sh#L93 would work for anyone!
>
> Luca, you say it works for you on 2019.1, have you tried with a really clean workdir for pmu-firmware (bitbake pmu-firmware -c cleanall)? (Just to be sure)
>
> ...And what's happening in the embeddedsw repo?? There is a branch called release-v2019.1 but there is a fork from commit 6d04739c1ddc8727911e8b14163336c86ceafa10 where almost all commits are repeated and there's a tag xilinx-v2019.1 on top. The two branches are almost identical. A few differences in pdfs, licenses and htmls and an extra lib/sw_services/xilsem directory on the xilinx-v2019.1 side.
>
> What gives?? How confusing is this! Which are we suppose to use? Don't get me wrong... I am glad I can access the code here. ;) But it looks like Xilinx is using some patch/apply workflow internally and it's not working tip top.
>
> Cheers and thanks for the help guys!
> /jfd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/attachments/20190604/07abe097/attachment-0001.html>