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<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)
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@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
