[PATCH 0/4] crownbay fixes

[PATCH 0/4] crownbay fixes

[Tom Zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

This fixes bug 986 for crownbay, crownbay-noemgd and fishriver - thanks
to Saul Wold for pointing out a fix for it.

It also adds a missing COMPATIBLE_MACHINE entry for crownbay-noemgd.

Pull URL: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
  Branch: tzanussi/bugfix-986
  Browse: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=tzanussi/bugfix-986

Thanks,
    Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---


Tom Zanussi (4):
  crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS
  crownbay-noemgd: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and
    PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS
  fishriver: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS
  crownbay-noemgd: add crownbay-noemgd as COMPATIBLE_MACHINE to
    linux-yocto bbappend

 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    3 ---
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    3 ---
 .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bbappend  |    4 ++++
 meta-fishriver/conf/machine/fishriver.conf         |    3 ---
 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

[PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Tom Zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.

Fixes [BUGID #986].

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf |    3 ---
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
index b8f107b..bc09ada 100644
--- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
+++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
@@ -5,12 +5,9 @@
 # i.e. E660 + EG20T
 
 TARGET_ARCH = "i586"
-PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "x86 atom"
 
 include conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
 
-BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH="atom"
-
 MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
                     acpi serial usbgadget"
 
-- 
1.7.0.4

[PATCH 2/4] crownbay-noemgd: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Tom Zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.

Fixes [BUGID #986].

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf |    3 ---
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
index 8c2ba99..2c66425 100644
--- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
+++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
@@ -5,12 +5,9 @@
 # i.e. E660 + EG20T
 
 TARGET_ARCH = "i586"
-PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "x86 atom"
 
 include conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
 
-BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH="atom"
-
 MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
                     acpi serial usbgadget"
 
-- 
1.7.0.4

[PATCH 3/4] fishriver: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Tom Zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 meta-fishriver/conf/machine/fishriver.conf |    3 ---
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta-fishriver/conf/machine/fishriver.conf b/meta-fishriver/conf/machine/fishriver.conf
index a88c205..2c81a79 100644
--- a/meta-fishriver/conf/machine/fishriver.conf
+++ b/meta-fishriver/conf/machine/fishriver.conf
@@ -5,12 +5,9 @@
 # i.e. Z530/E660 + EG20T
 
 TARGET_ARCH = "i586"
-PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "x86 atom"
 
 include conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
 
-BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH="atom"
-
 MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
                     acpi serial usbgadget"
 
-- 
1.7.0.4

[PATCH 4/4] crownbay-noemgd: add crownbay-noemgd as COMPATIBLE_MACHINE to linux-yocto bbappend

[Tom Zanussi]

From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>

crownbay-noemgd also needs a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE entry in linux-yocto.

Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@intel.com>
---
 .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bbappend  |    4 ++++
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bbappend
index 5912fb7..176acd3 100644
--- a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bbappend
+++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bbappend
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
 FILESEXTRAPATHS := "${FILESEXTRAPATHS}:${THISDIR}/${PN}"
+
 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
 KMACHINE_crownbay  = "yocto/standard/crownbay"
+
+COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
+KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "yocto/standard/crownbay"
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Saul Wold]

On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
>
> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
>
I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.

> Fixes [BUGID #986].
>
Should be [YOCTO #986]

> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> ---
>   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf |    3 ---
>   1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> index b8f107b..bc09ada 100644
> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> @@ -5,12 +5,9 @@
>   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>
>   TARGET_ARCH = "i586"
> -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "x86 atom"
>
>   include conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>
> -BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH="atom"
> -
>   MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
>                       acpi serial usbgadget"
>

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Tom Zanussi]

On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 21:18 -0700, Wold, Saul wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> >
> > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> > include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> > included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> > Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> > file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
> >
> I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.
> 

Yeah, I'll change that along with a couple other changes to that file,
such as switching -march=core2 to -march=atom, soon...

Tom

> > Fixes [BUGID #986].
> >
> Should be [YOCTO #986]
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf |    3 ---
> >   1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > index b8f107b..bc09ada 100644
> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > @@ -5,12 +5,9 @@
> >   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
> >
> >   TARGET_ARCH = "i586"
> > -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "x86 atom"
> >
> >   include conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> >
> > -BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH="atom"
> > -
> >   MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
> >                       acpi serial usbgadget"
> >
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Richard Purdie]

On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 21:18 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> >
> > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> > include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> > included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> > Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> > file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
> >
> I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.

No, we really don't want to do that ;-). 

The whole point behind the tune-* include files is they are the one
correct place where these architecture specific flags get setup
correctly. Experience shows people trying to do it in each machine file
get it wrong more often than right, this machine file being a perfect
example.

If some different flags are needed, we create a new tune-xxx file which
can either inherit another and customise or set the correct values
itself.

Cheers,

Richard

> > Fixes [BUGID #986].
> >
> Should be [YOCTO #986]
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf |    3 ---
> >   1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > index b8f107b..bc09ada 100644
> > --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
> > @@ -5,12 +5,9 @@
> >   # i.e. E660 + EG20T
> >
> >   TARGET_ARCH = "i586"
> > -PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "x86 atom"
> >
> >   include conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> >
> > -BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH="atom"
> > -
> >   MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 screen keyboard pci usbhost ext2 ext3 x86 \
> >                       acpi serial usbgadget"
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Richard Purdie]

On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:13 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 21:18 -0700, Wold, Saul wrote:
> > On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > >
> > > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> > > include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> > > included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> > > Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> > > file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
> > >
> > I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I'll change that along with a couple other changes to that file,
> such as switching -march=core2 to -march=atom, soon...

Does that actually make any difference to gcc? It never used to but I'm
wondering if anything has changed?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Tom Zanussi]

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 01:37 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:13 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 21:18 -0700, Wold, Saul wrote:
> > > On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > > From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> > > > include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> > > > included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> > > > Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> > > > file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
> > > >
> > > I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah, I'll change that along with a couple other changes to that file,
> > such as switching -march=core2 to -march=atom, soon...
> 
> Does that actually make any difference to gcc? It never used to but I'm
> wondering if anything has changed?

I don't know yet, which is why I didn't just make the change
straightaway - it would need some benchmarking first, at least.

I would be kind of surprised though if it didn't have some effect -
otherwise why would it exist at all?  It sounds like you've tested this
before and it didn't make any difference - how did you test, and do you
have any benchmarking suggestions that would help decide one way or the
other?

Thanks,

Tom

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 09:17 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 01:37 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:13 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 21:18 -0700, Wold, Saul wrote:
> > > > On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > > > From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> > > > > include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> > > > > included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> > > > > Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> > > > > file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
> > > > >
> > > > I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I'll change that along with a couple other changes to that file,
> > > such as switching -march=core2 to -march=atom, soon...
> > 
> > Does that actually make any difference to gcc? It never used to but I'm
> > wondering if anything has changed?
> 
> I don't know yet, which is why I didn't just make the change
> straightaway - it would need some benchmarking first, at least.
> 
> I would be kind of surprised though if it didn't have some effect -
> otherwise why would it exist at all?  It sounds like you've tested this
> before and it didn't make any difference - how did you test, and do you
> have any benchmarking suggestions that would help decide one way or the
> other?

I think I looked at the gcc codebase and found it didn't do anything.
Its more common that you'd have thought in gcc :/

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 1/4] crownbay: remove custom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 10:25 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 09:17 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 01:37 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:13 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 21:18 -0700, Wold, Saul wrote:
> > > > > On 05/14/2011 08:36 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > > > > From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi@intel.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf file gets overwritten by the tune-atom
> > > > > > include following it, preventing the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH from being
> > > > > > included in the final PACKAGE_ARCHS and causing do_rootfs to fail.
> > > > > > Remove the atom BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS in the conf
> > > > > > file and allow the values in tune-atom to be used as intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think we may still want to change the tune-atom PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS to ?=.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, I'll change that along with a couple other changes to that file,
> > > > such as switching -march=core2 to -march=atom, soon...
> > > 
> > > Does that actually make any difference to gcc? It never used to but I'm
> > > wondering if anything has changed?
> > 
> > I don't know yet, which is why I didn't just make the change
> > straightaway - it would need some benchmarking first, at least.
> > 
> > I would be kind of surprised though if it didn't have some effect -
> > otherwise why would it exist at all?  It sounds like you've tested this
> > before and it didn't make any difference - how did you test, and do you
> > have any benchmarking suggestions that would help decide one way or the
> > other?
> 
> I think I looked at the gcc codebase and found it didn't do anything.
> Its more common that you'd have thought in gcc :/
> 

OK, good to know.  I'll take a look when I get a chance and see if
anything's changed in that area lately...

Tom

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>