Comments inline. On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:18 AM Nathan Rossi <nat...@nathanrossi.com> wrote:
> On 19 March 2018 at 01:42, Giordon Stark <kra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Nathan, > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:29 AM Nathan Rossi <nat...@nathanrossi.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On 18 March 2018 at 04:57, Giordon Stark <kra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Based on Jorge's suggestion (cc'd), I uncommented my lines in > >> > device-tree.bbappend to set compatible machine = ".*" for my > particular > >> > boards as it is being done upstream... and bitbake seems to be happier > >> > with > >> > that, but then I run into this error > >> > >> Yes that change was done for rocko. It was done to prevent > >> expectations around device-tree supporting machines where the user has > >> not provided the device tree files to build, in order to make it clear > >> what pieces are needed to build for custom machines. > > > > > > Can you point to the specific change made? It's not clear to me that > adding > > > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_my-machine = ".*" > > > > actually makes this situation clearer, rather than say > > > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_my-machine = "my_machine" > > The change that made requirement of COMPATIBLE_MACHINE to be set is: > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/commit/?id=eb0abe0230 > > I see. How is this change affecting the zynqmp boards? I don't see a bbappends adding COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for them? > There is not a lot of difference between the two ways of setting > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE as you have described above. > > Just be careful not to use "_" in machine names, or you will hit issues. > > > > > So I went ahead and set SPL_BINARY = "" to clear it out, and updated > > platform-init but then I got a boot-bin recipe related error as well as > the > > fact that platform-init can't find the ps*init files. I guess a lot of > this > > is now requiring tighter integration with the SDK which is slightly > breaking > > my use case.. > > I don't think there is any integration between the SDK tooling and the > platform-init recipe or for that matter the > virtual/xilinx-platform-init provider. But u-boot-xlnx will _not_ > provide virtual/boot-bin if it does not have the platform-init files, > though that is intended in your case. You might need to select a > different provider for virtual/boot-bin if you are using the SDK > tooling layer and depending on that virtual target. > > > > > I'm currently using the FSBL method at the moment, so I'm doing this via > > CROPS (virtual machine + automating the build in continuous integration) > and > > then taking the bitbake outputs and loading them up into my SDK on a > > different machine to make the BOOT.bin. Is this not possible anymore with > > all of these changes and requiring the zcu102-zynqmp.conf? Should I just > go > > one step higher and set all of these things myself manually and drop > > platform-init/boot-bin/spl? > > If you are not building your machine exactly like the > zcu102-zynqmp.conf then you are likely better off copying it and > modifying it the way you want instead of including it. But looking at > your layers master branch it appears you have already made that > change. So I am not sure of the exact question you are asking here? > Yes, very observant :) I've been switching things over because I'm now realizing my (lazy!) days of copying the zcu102-zynqmp.conf is probably coming to an end... I suspect my problem is that I had to add the "zcu102-zynqmp" to the machine overrides for when I initially copied things over, and that caused issues down the line with things like platform-init and so on -- with all the changes to COMPATIBLE_MACHINE. G > > Regards, > Nathan > -- Giordon Stark
-- _______________________________________________ meta-xilinx mailing list meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-xilinx
