On 2016-12-11 02:33 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:19:56 Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 2016-12-09 11:17 AM, Andrea Galbusera wrote:
Hi Bruce,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com <mailto:bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com>>
wrote:
On 2016-12-08 09:06 AM, Bent Bisballe Nyeng wrote:
Hi list
I am working on a project based on the iMX6UL-EVK using the
meta-fsl-arm
layer for the kernel.
In a local layer I have a bbappend recipe containing a patch for
an
extra kernel feature (a framebuffer device) in that kernel as
well as a
.cfg enabling said feature.
The bbappend recipe is located in
recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc-imx_%.bbappend and looks like
this:
FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
SRC_URI += " \
file://0001-mxc-4.1.patch \
file://ST7789S.cfg \
"
KERNEL_DEVICETREE = "imx6ul-14x14-evk.dtb"
The .cfg is located in
recipes-kernel/linux/linux-fslc-imx/ST7789S.cfg
and looks like:
CONFIG_FB_MXS_ST7789S_QVGA=y
The 0001-mxc-4.1.patch patch is correctly applied but the .cfg
is either
ignored or overwritten by some later buyild step since the
resulting
.config after kernel compilation contains:
# CONFIG_FB_MXS_ST7789S_QVGA is not set
I have tried finding the script in the build/.../temp folder
that takes
care of the .cfg file patching but have not been able to find
anything
useful.
Any hints as to where I should start looking for a solution?
Fragment processing using the kernel tools + auditing is only
currently
available to kernel recipes that use the kernel-yocto bbclass. That
opt-in requirement was to ensure that existing recipes and workflows
weren't broken by the new features.
Last time I checked, the meta-fsl* kernel recipes don't use the
kernel-yocto bbclass, so the fragment would be ignored.
I'm taking the processing of fragments and making it universally
available in the upcoming 2.3 release, so what I just described
won't be an issue for much longer.
In the mean time, you have a few options:
- in your bbappend, add "inherit kernel-yocto" and the processing
of fragments will be enabled (I can't say that I've tested
it against that recipe .. but the entire point of the new tasks
is that they are transparent/don't break existing worflows)
- carry a defconfig in your layer, and add it to the SRC_URI. That
defconfig would be the existing kernel recipe's defconfig + your
options
I was just testing one of my layers against your recent patchset on
kernel-yocto when I noticed this thread. My build is broken by commit
476ffd57cf5b6fba40d4e3f5dd913824ab8a8d3d on oe-core
(e38775a1d82e6dc60fc96cf243ecb94be964d9b2 on the poky repo side).
WARNING: linux-altera-ltsi-4.1.22-ltsi+gitAUTOINC+76bdba2700-r0
do_kernel_metadata: GIZERO: before 'cmp'
ERROR: linux-altera-ltsi-4.1.22-ltsi+gitAUTOINC+76bdba2700-r0
do_kernel_metadata: Function failed: do_kernel_metadata (log file is
located at
/scratch/gizero/mitysom-5csx-master-build/tmp/work/cyclone5-poky-linux-gnu
eabi/linux-altera-ltsi/4.1.22-ltsi+gitAUTOINC+76bdba2700-r0/temp/log.do_ke
rnel_metadata.28274) ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in:
/scratch/gizero/mitysom-5csx-master-build/tmp/work/cyclone5-poky-linux-gnu
eabi/linux-altera-ltsi/4.1.22-ltsi+gitAUTOINC+76bdba2700-r0/temp/log.do_ke
rnel_metadata.28274>
Log data follows:
| DEBUG: Executing shell function do_kernel_metadata
| WARNING: GIZERO: before 'cmp'
/scratch/gizero/mitysom-5csx-master-build/tmp/work/cyclone5-poky-linux-gnu
eabi/linux-altera-ltsi/4.1.22-ltsi+gitAUTOINC+76bdba2700-r0/defconfig
/scratch/gizero/mitysom-5csx-master-build/tmp/work-shared/cyclone5/kernel
-source/arch/arm/configs/socfpga_defconfig differ: byte 1525, line 72
| WARNING: exit code 1 from a shell command.
| ERROR: Function failed: do_kernel_metadata (log file is located at
/scratch/gizero/mitysom-5csx-master-build/tmp/work/cyclone5-poky-linux-gnu
eabi/linux-altera-ltsi/4.1.22-ltsi+gitAUTOINC+76bdba2700-r0/temp/log.do_ke
rnel_metadata.28274) ERROR: Task
(/home/gizero/work/decos/repo-master/poky/../meta-altera/recipes-kernel/li
nux/linux-altera-ltsi_4.1.22.bb:do_kernel_metadata) failed with exit code
'1'
The commit in the patch remove the 'set +e' bits, but the following
legit code path expects the cmp command to have a non-zero return value.
Aha. Indeed that is true. Clearly there aren't many people going
through that path.
Can we please have some automated tests covering all of this? Perhaps it would
be worth talking to Francisco Pedraza who is looking at adding tests under bug
6359:
We are already meeting to talk about this :D
Bruce
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6359
Cheers,
Paul
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
