On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:48:30AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Markus Hubig <mhu...@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) Cheers, Markus _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto