Problem with BSP supporting different machines

Post by Markus Hubig
I'm having some trouble building a BSP supporting two different machines.
The machines in question are the Stamp9g20 and PortuxG20 from taskit. These
machines are just slightly different course the PortuxG20 is basically just
a small SBC built around the Stamp9G20.
You can have a look at my BSP here: http://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20
but take attention that you're selecting the denzil branch...
If I set MACHINE = stamp9g20 in local.conf all went fine, but with
MACHINE = portuxg20 I get a kernel for common-pc instead of
arm-versatile-926ejs ...
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
| 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 ...
Please can someone have a look? ;-)

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.

If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
two problems at
once.

Bruce

Post by Markus Hubig
Cheers, Markus
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"

Markus Hubig

2012-08-09 16:32:19 UTC

<snip>

Post by Markus Hubig
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
| 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"

Post by Bruce Ashfield
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 ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
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

Bruce Ashfield

2012-08-09 17:24:06 UTC

Post by Markus Hubig
<snip>

Damn! Found the problem, just a typo :-)
| -KMACHINE_portux9g20 = "portuxg20"
| +KMACHINE_portuxg20 = "portuxg20"

Post by Bruce Ashfield
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
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs
As I mentiond before the files kconf_check should (IMHO) have a look
| 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.
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/invalid.cfg
|
| This BSP sets 10 kernel options that are possibly non-hardware related.
| 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.
| 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
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/missing_required.cfg
So I'm not shure if my BSP is creating the kernel I wanna have ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
two problems at once.

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

Post by Markus Hubig
Cheers, Markus
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Bruce Ashfield

2012-08-09 19:10:36 UTC

Post by Markus Hubig
<snip>

Post by Markus Hubig
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
| 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"

Post by Bruce Ashfield
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
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs
As I mentiond before the files kconf_check should (IMHO) have a look
| 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.
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/invalid.cfg
|
| This BSP sets 10 kernel options that are possibly non-hardware related.
| 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.
| 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

That's not all that bad for a first cut, that last "0" report is
also fine, since nothing uses the "required" tag in denzil.

Post by Markus Hubig
| have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file.
| This is a violation of the policy defined by the higher level config
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/missing_required.cfg
So I'm not shure if my BSP is creating the kernel I wanna have ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
two problems at once.

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.

Aha. yes, I knew this looked familiar. It's a fall out from the old
branch based triggers for the tools. Your BSP is configuring properly,
the report just isn't all that useful.

It is (largely) fixed by this commit to the kern tools:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-kernel-tools/commit/?id=4b5dd4d5b541ff98110e8b58f6d33923893e0950

Porting this to denzil .. may be possible, and I can give it a try,
but I can't drag back all of the kern-tools enhancements, and many
of the changes depend on associated changes in other scripts.

If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
ignoring it).

Was this BSP generating using the tooling, or by hand ?

Cheers,

Bruce

Post by Bruce Ashfield
Cheers,
Bruce

Post by Markus Hubig
Cheers, Markus
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

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

Markus Hubig

2012-08-10 15:01:01 UTC

Post by Markus Hubig
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.
| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/invalid.cfg
|
| This BSP sets 10 kernel options that are possibly non-hardware related.
| 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.
| 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

That's not all that bad for a first cut, that last "0" report is
also fine, since nothing uses the "required" tag in denzil.

Hmm ok ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
two problems at once.

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.

Aha. yes, I knew this looked familiar. It's a fall out from the old
branch based triggers for the tools. Your BSP is configuring properly,
the report just isn't all that useful.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-kernel-tools/commit/?id=4b5dd4d5b541ff98110e8b58f6d33923893e0950
Porting this to denzil .. may be possible, and I can give it a try,
but I can't drag back all of the kern-tools enhancements, and many
of the changes depend on associated changes in other scripts.

Hmm no it's fine. I switched to 1.3_M3 and run a test build at the moment,
to give it a try ... (Hmm I actually didn't know if this commit is included
in the kernel 3.2 the 1.3_M3 branch uses ... )

Hmm just switching to the 1.3_M3 branch doesn't solve the warning, instead
the kernel build failed with error:

| DEBUG: Executing shell function do_kernel_configme
| [INFO] doing kernel configme
| [INFO] Configuring target/machine combo: "standard/portuxg20"
| [INFO] collecting configs in ./meta/meta-series
| [##################################################] (completed in 4 seconds)
| ERROR: could not sanitize configuration fragments
| errors are logged in meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log
| ERROR: Function failed: do_kernel_configme (see poky/build/tmp/work/\
| portuxg20-poky-linux-gnueabi/linux-yocto-3.2.18+git1+ \
| 486f7aec824b4127e91ef53228823e996b3696f0_1+\
| 7cc31a952f78b8f8e8469eed93c23e9675a8eeb5-r4.0.1/temp/ \
| log.do_kernel_configme.12375 for further information)

I checked at meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log and found this:

| ...
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/fuse/fuse.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/ktypes/standard/standard.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/devtmpfs.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/debugfs.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
| [ERROR] Kern frag does not exist

Hmm strange ... Now I cloned the tzanussi/yocto-bsp-master-update branch
from pocky-contrib (since I read the patch request from tzanussi on the ML)
and looked what his yocto-bsp script did.

The main difference I spotted was in stamp9g20-standard.scc

| define KMACHINE stamp9g20
| define KTYPE standard
| define KARCH arm
|
| include ktypes/standard
|-branch stamp9g20
|
| include stamp9g20.scc

But removing the branch statement didn't change the error (on the 1.3_M3
branch) so I switched to using the shine new 3.4 kernel.

But -> same error! OK maybe the 1.3_M3 is not that stable at all, so back
to denzil and 3.2. But with the branch statement removed ...

Damn now I hit another strange error:

| arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-ld: cannot find -lgcc
| make: *** [u-boot] Error 1
| ERROR: oe_runmake failed

See https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20/changeset/ebf8f19ea1932e1b6ed33e549023be44618481e7
for further details ...

And the warnings 'still stays on' ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
ignoring it).

To do this I had to make some modification to my linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
file, like this, right?

| COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"
| -KBRANCH_stamp9g20 = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs"
| +KBRANCH_stamp9g20 = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
| +YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20 = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
| KMACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"

But do I need to set a YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20?

Post by Bruce Ashfield
Was this BSP generating using the tooling, or by hand ?

Initially I tried to build one by hand but then I learned about the yocto-bsp
so I created the BSP with the tool and included my modifications.

Cheers, Markus

Bruce Ashfield

2012-08-10 16:50:00 UTC

That's not all that bad for a first cut, that last "0" report is
also fine, since nothing uses the "required" tag in denzil.

Hmm ok ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
two problems at once.

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.

That is interesting. I means something was detected as a configuration
fragment ...
that wasn't, or didn't get migrated to the source tree. I can
reproduce this with the
layer that you provided before ?

Post by Markus Hubig
The main difference I spotted was in stamp9g20-standard.scc
| define KMACHINE stamp9g20
| define KTYPE standard
| define KARCH arm
|
| include ktypes/standard
|-branch stamp9g20
|
| include stamp9g20.scc
But removing the branch statement didn't change the error (on the 1.3_M3
branch) so I switched to using the shine new 3.4 kernel.
But -> same error! OK maybe the 1.3_M3 is not that stable at all, so back
to denzil and 3.2. But with the branch statement removed ...

That really is strange, Tom and I have both tested this recently. I'll need to
take another look.

Post by Markus Hubig
| arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-ld: cannot find -lgcc
| make: *** [u-boot] Error 1
| ERROR: oe_runmake failed
See https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20/changeset/ebf8f19ea1932e1b6ed33e549023be44618481e7
for further details ...
And the warnings 'still stays on' ...

Post by Bruce Ashfield
If you were to use a completely new branch (versus the re-use), the
warning would also go a way (versus my current suggestion of
ignoring it).

To do this I had to make some modification to my linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
file, like this, right?
| COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"
| -KBRANCH_stamp9g20 = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs"
| +KBRANCH_stamp9g20 = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
| +YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20 = "standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/stamp9g20"
| KMACHINE_stamp9g20 = "stamp9g20"
But do I need to set a YOCTO_KERNEL_EXTERNAL_BRANCH_stamp9g20?

In 3.2 you would. I'm out of the office today, but you shouldn't still
be seeing errors
with master or with 3.2.

I'll do a complete build of your machine to see if bugs crept in.

Cheers,

Bruce

Post by Bruce Ashfield
Was this BSP generating using the tooling, or by hand ?

Initially I tried to build one by hand but then I learned about the yocto-bsp
so I created the BSP with the tool and included my modifications.
Cheers, Markus
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"

Markus Hubig

2012-08-10 18:20:06 UTC

Post by Markus Hubig
Hmm just switching to the 1.3_M3 branch doesn't solve the warning, instead
| DEBUG: Executing shell function do_kernel_configme
| [INFO] doing kernel configme
| [INFO] Configuring target/machine combo: "standard/portuxg20"
| [INFO] collecting configs in ./meta/meta-series
| [##################################################] (completed in 4 seconds)
| ERROR: could not sanitize configuration fragments
| errors are logged in meta/cfg/standard/portuxg20/config.log
| ERROR: Function failed: do_kernel_configme (see poky/build/tmp/work/\
| portuxg20-poky-linux-gnueabi/linux-yocto-3.2.18+git1+ \
| 486f7aec824b4127e91ef53228823e996b3696f0_1+\
| 7cc31a952f78b8f8e8469eed93c23e9675a8eeb5-r4.0.1/temp/ \
| log.do_kernel_configme.12375 for further information)
| ...
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/fuse/fuse.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/ktypes/standard/standard.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/devtmpfs.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/debugfs.cfg
| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
| [ERROR] Kern frag does not exist
Hmm strange ... Now I cloned the tzanussi/yocto-bsp-master-update branch
from pocky-contrib (since I read the patch request from tzanussi on the ML)
and looked what his yocto-bsp script did.

That is interesting. I means something was detected as a configuration
fragment ...

| [INFO] Sanitizing meta/cfgportuxg20
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Something get's crippled here!

Post by Bruce Ashfield
that wasn't, or didn't get migrated to the source tree. I can
reproduce this with the layer that you provided before ?

Yes, but please pull bevor. I have two branches now 1.3_M3 and denzil.
I got this error with 1.3_M3 (both poky and my bsp) and linux 3.2 & 3.4.