[yocto] Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 12-08-09 12:32 PM, Markus Hubig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:48:30AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Markus Hubig<mhubig at imko.de>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Comparing the output of "bitbake -e linux-yocto" for both MACHINE settings
>>> I notice that for stamp9g20 KMACHINE is "stamp9g20" but for portuxg20 it's
>>> "common-pc", which results in these "updateme" command:
>>>
>>> | updateme --branch standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs -DKDESC=common-pc:standard
>>> |  --feature features/netfilter --feature features/taskstats arm common-pc
>>> |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/hardware.cfg
>>> |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/non-hardware.cfg
>>> |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20.cfg
>>> |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20-preempt-rt.scc
>>> |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20.scc
>>> |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20-standard.scc
>>>
>>> Which again (I think ...) leads to a kernel compile error ...
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I was not able to find out why the KMACHINE variable is not setup
>>> correctly with my BSP for PortuxG20 ...
>
> Damn! Found the problem, just a typo :-)
>
> | -KMACHINE_portux9g20  = "portuxg20"
> | +KMACHINE_portuxg20  = "portuxg20"
>
>> Is this the same BSP producing the kconf check warnings on denzil ? I
>> ran tests this morning and denzil itself is clean, so there's definitely
>> something wrong in the layer.
>
> Yes it's the same BSP and the kconf_check warnings are persistent!
>
> | WARNING: Can't find any BSP hardware or required configuration fragments.
> | WARNING: Looked at
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/hdw_frags.txt
> | and
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/required_frags.txt
> | in directory:
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs
>
> As I mentiond before the files kconf_check should (IMHO) have a look
> at are in:
>
> | linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20
>
> If I ran the kconf_check manually I get an output, but not a very
> promissing one :(
>
> | This BSP sets 4 invalid/obsolete kernel options.
> | These config options are not offered anywhere within this kernel.
> | The full list can be found in your workspace at:
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/invalid.cfg
> |
> | This BSP sets 10 kernel options that are possibly non-hardware related.
> | The full list can be found in your workspace at:
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/specified_non_hdw.cfg
> |
> | WARNING: There were 17 hardware options requested that do not
> |          have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file.
> |          This probably means you aren't getting the config you wanted.
> | The full list can be found in your workspace at:
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/mismatch.cfg
> |
> | Waiting a second to make sure you get a chance to see this...
> | ** NOTE: There were 0 required options requested that do not
> |          have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file.
> |          This is a violation of the policy defined by the higher level config
> | The full list can be found in your workspace at:
> |  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/missing_required.cfg
>
> So I'm not shure if my BSP is creating the kernel I wanna have ...
>
>> If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
>> two problems at once.
>
> This would be very nice! I really stuck here ... The BSP can be found at:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20 (branch denzil)

I have a clone and started a build. When I have some results .. I'll
send more email.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Cheers, Markus
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto