Hi Jon, This stuff is processed in config/userspace/toolchain.lkc which should be included in the BSP's config/platform/_target_/main.lkc file.
Maybe whoever made this platform forgot to add it into the list of toolchains for that platform? Which platform do you have selected? Regards, Stuart On 21/10/11 15:05, [email protected] wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Stuart Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Jon, >> >> I understand your frustration, however if you need NXP kernel patches >> integrated etc, you probably need to get a commercial agreement in place >> with them or some other entity to do this (or have a program to do this >> yourself). >> >> Regarding toolchains, you can use non-LTIB defined toolchains, provided you >> are aware of some potential pitfalls. >> >> First of all to do the selection, run: >> >> ./ltib -m config >> >> and then select under: "--- Toolchain selection." go to the next line and >> select the current toolchain and hit the enter key, you should see something >> like this (depending on BSP): >> >> (X) arm gcc-4.2.4 uClibc-0.9.30.1 soft float >> ( ) Custom > > I'm not getting the () Custom option when the NXP toolchains are enabled. > > I just did a cvs update > >> >> Use the arrow key and select custom and then enter. >> >> You now have these options: >> >> Toolchain (Custom) ---> >> () Enter the custom toolchain path. >> () Enter the toolchain prefix >> () Enter any CFLAGS for gcc/g++ >> >> For each one, enter the values for your toolchain. For example they could >> be: >> >> /opt/z2/usr/local/gcc-4.2.4-uClibc-0.9.30.1-nfp-6/arm-linux-uclibc/usr >> arm-linux-uclibc- >> -msoft-float >> >> Now save this and then you could try to run: ./ltib >> >> The pitfall I spoke about is that the package baselibs.spec expects the >> toolchains to be built and laid out in a particular way. The ones that are >> "known" are the CodeSourcery toolchains (of the vintage in LTIB) and also to >> some extent uClibc toolchains as were built when I was at Freescale. If >> your toolchain is not laid out this way, you'll need to adjust the paths in >> the .spec file (you could override this locally in your >> config/platform/_target_ directory). BTW: the purpose of baselibs is to >> copy the toolchain's target libraries to the target image (rather than >> re-building glibc/uclibc) so that you are guaranteed that the libs you build >> and run against match. >> >> Regards, Stuart >> >> >> On 20/10/11 14:41, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Stuart Hughes<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jon, >>>> >>>> Please don't preach. This is well known, but there are good reasons not >>>> to >>>> do this. Mostly it comes down to time and money, a constraint many of us >>>> do >>>> have. >>>> >>>> Also there are many other reasons why this does not get done, so calm >>>> down a >>>> bit. All this stuff is public and there if you wish to use it, otherwise >>>> use something else. >>> >>> A lot of developers are unaware of how badly this problem can bite >>> them until they build and ship a product that subsequently gets hacked >>> because of a security bug. In the past we have wasted large amounts of >>> money recovering from this problem and want to try and avoid it in the >>> future. >>> >>> On the positive side the current state of embedded support is far >>> better than it was five years ago. >>> >>> I'm just annoyed since forward porting uboot support for the lpc3130 >>> has turned out to be very complicated. NXP wrote their own two stage >>> boot system which is proving hard to map onto the model supplied by >>> current uboot. It can definitely be done but it is significant work. >>> >>> We want a current kernel and I was able to forward port the NXP kernel >>> patches in a couple of weeks. But there are changes in the way ARM >>> ATAGs are passed from uboot into the kernel which are addressed in a >>> more recent uboot. We are considering switching to a different CPU to >>> reduce the software load. >>> >>> A very useful option to add to ltib would be a simple config option to >>> use the ARM cross compilers already on the system (ie the Linaro ones >>> in Ubuntu). That would make it much easier to test with the current >>> compilers. I tried poking around in the scripts to add it but I >>> couldn't figure out how to do it. >>> >>> >>>> Regards, Stuart >>>> >>>> On 19/10/11 14:23, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Please submit any publicly useful changes you make to packages >>>>> upstream and don't carry the patches around in ltib for years. I am >>>>> spending a month right now trying to forward port the lpc313x uboot >>>>> changes up to current uboot. I've already brought the lpc313x changes >>>>> up to the current kernel and need a newer uboot to support it. If >>>>> those changes had been submitted upstream three years ago when they >>>>> were written I wouldn't have to be doing this. >>>>> >>>>> You really want changes submitted upstream. If you don't do it then >>>>> you get locked into the version of the program that you patched. You >>>>> may think that is saving you work by not having to hassle with the >>>>> submission. And that appearance will be true until a security hole is >>>>> found and patched in a latter version and your boss tells you that you >>>>> have to apply the patch. Now you have a mess. The patch is against a >>>>> latter version of the app that doesn't match your source code. >>>>> >>>>> To deal with the mess you either have to create your own private fork >>>>> where you apply security patches to your old, patched code (this is a >>>>> tower of cards that will fall as more patches accumulate) or you have >>>>> to forward port the your initial patch. You could have avoided all of >>>>> this by simply submitting the initial patch upstream. I've seen people >>>>> change jobs rather than deal with messes created by private forks. >>>>> >>>>> Of course you can choose to ignore the security patches. Do you know >>>>> how easy it is to hack something when you have the source code of the >>>>> patch fixing the vulnerability? >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ LTIB home page: http://ltib.org Ltib mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ltib
