Ok, I was looking in this issue, but this helps a lot :)
I'm going to rework the patches since I have more changes in machine config
file
that solves some problems when I was trying to boot on the target as soon I
get them right
I will send them.
Regards
Adrian Alonso
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Stefan Schmidt
<ste...@datenfreihafen.org>wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 13:11, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > On 02-03-10 11:56, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 10:26, Khem Raj wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Adrian Alonso <aalons...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Alonso <aalons...@gmail.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc | 2 +-
> > >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> b/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > >>> index feca186..0c41db4 100644
> > >>> --- a/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > >>> +++ b/conf/machine/include/tune-ppc440.inc
> > >>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > >>> TARGET_CC_ARCH = "-mcpu=440"
> > >>> BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "ppc440"
> > >>> FEED_ARCH = "ppc440"
> > >>> -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppc440e"
> > >>> +PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppc440 ppc440e"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I wonder why this would be needed, I would think that PACKAGE_ARCHS
> > >> consists of PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS and PACKAGE_ARCH (which is default
> > >> arch constructed from BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH)
> > >> if that was the case then ppc440 would be added to supported archs
> > >> list already but it seems there is a disconnect between PACKAGE_ARCH
> > >> and PACKAGE_ARCHS I am not sure if it
> > >> is deliberate or an oversight. If it is an oversight then it should be
> > >> fixed in bitbake.conf and that would avoid this patch.
> > >
> > > Can somebody with more insight in bitbake.conf give us some insight
> here?
> > >
> > > Right now bitbake.conf does not include PACKAGE_ARCH in PACKAGE_ARCHS.
> > >
> > > PACKAGE_ARCHS = "all any noarch ${TARGET_ARCH} ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS}
> ${MACHINE}"
> > >
> > > If it should stay this way, would Adrian's patch be ok? I would rather
> get his
> > > contributions in then having them sit to long around. Need to keep
> people
> > > motivated. :)
> >
> > The patch is OK, but for clarity we should change existing contructs
> like:
> >
> > FEED_ARCH = "armv7a"
> > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "armv4 armv4t armv5te armv6 armv7 armv7a"
> > BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "armv7a"
> >
> > to
> >
> > BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "armv7a"
> > FEED_ARCH = "${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH}"
> > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "armv4 armv4t armv5te armv6 armv7
> > ${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH}"
> >
> > So the patch in question would become:
> >
> > - -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "ppc440e"
> > +PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS += "${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH} ppc440e"
>
> Sounds good to me. Adrian, can you please rework your patch, test it and
> submit
> this onw again?
>
> I'll pick it up with the other patches and push it into the tree.
>
> regards
> Stefan Schmidt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
--
Saludos
Adrian Alonso
http://aalonso.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
