From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QPF7T-0005oW-A7 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 16:31:31 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2011 07:28:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.115]) ([10.255.12.115]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2011 07:28:26 -0700 From: Tom Zanussi To: Koen Kooi In-Reply-To: <1306260430.2491.2.camel@elmorro> References: <4DDBDE9D.5000709@linux.intel.com> <20110524172330.GC18086@sakrah.homelinux.org> <6D7346D0-2F4B-44EC-A04B-2F443B33E544@dominion.thruhere.net> <1306260430.2491.2.camel@elmorro> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: <1306333690.2491.82.camel@elmorro> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: adding meta-intel layers breaks parsing, was Re: Updating u-boot for oe-core or meta-yocto X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:31:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 13:07 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:51 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 24 mei 2011, om 19:23 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > > > > > On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote: > > >> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In > > > > > > why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you > > > want to have some of those machines in a different layer. > > > > > >> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on. > > >> Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context: > > >> > > >> 1) oe-core is intended to support emulated machines only > > >> 2) oe-core has a "virgin" u-boot recipe (no patches) > > >> 3) meta-yocto does not have a u-boot recipe (no bbappend either) > > >> 4) meta-ti has it's own u-boot recipe with per-machine patches > > >> > > >> A stated goal was to bring the Yocto Project's u-boot support for the > > >> Beagleboard in line with that in meta-ti. There are several ways I can > > >> go about this. > > >> > > >> a) create a bbappend in meta-yocto and duplicate the meta-ti > > >> modifications in bbappend form. > > >> b) Modify the oe-core recipe directly > > >> > > >> While a) is the most direct approach to accomplish our goal, it requires > > >> continual maintenance and duplicates effort. I don't care for this > > >> approach. b) has the potential to consolidate all beagleboard u-boot > > >> recipe work into a single place. It could simplify the meta-ti and > > >> eliminate the need for a bbappend in the meta-yocto layer. > > >> > > >> The question of whether bootloaders have a place in oe-core should > > >> probably be addressed. While they aren't needed for the emulated > > >> machines, they are a highly reusable component for real systems, and > > >> that seems justify keeping them in oe-core. Does anyone disagree with > > >> this assessment? > > >> > > >> I propose pulling the necessary changes to u-boot from meta-ti into > > >> oe-core. My initial scan suggested the beagleboard patches are mostly > > >> contained to beagle specific source files. I would prefer to pull in all > > >> the patches for all machines into the SRC_URI, rather than divide them > > >> up by machine. This reduces complexity considerably. For the couple of > > >> patches that collide, we would keep those as machine specific. > > >> > > >> As a final part of the work, I would include my beagleboard patch status > > >> audit in the included patches and continue to work on reducing the > > >> patches in the recipe for the beagleboard. > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > Well I am in similar boat where I wanted to build atom-pc for angstrom > > > but I was thinking using meta-intel layer instead of pulling stuff out > > > and stuffing it elsewhere and certainly not oe-core > > > > Speaking of meta-intel layers, when I add them to bblayer.conf I get: > > > > ERROR: Error parsing /OE/tentacle/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-stable_git.bb: Failure expanding variable FILESEXTRAPATHS, expression was ${FILESEXTRAPATHS}:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel/meta-n450/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-stable which triggered exception Exception: variable FILESEXTRAPATHS references itself! > > > > Same for jasperforest, emenlow, fishriver and crownbay. The only intel layer I can add without breaking the parsing step is sugarbay :( > > > > Must be something recent - I've built several of those successfully over > the past few days, will take a look though... > I just finished building all of the above successfully using the latest (as of yesterday) poky/master and meta-intel/master. Not sure why you're seeing parsing errors, none here... Tom > Tom > > > Same goes for meta-xilinx, that breaks in the uboot recipe with some NoneType and string errors. > > > > regards, > > > > Koen > > >