* [PATCH v2 0/2] u-boot updates to make it more bbappend friendly @ 2011-05-26 21:12 Darren Hart 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES Darren Hart 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] u-boot: rename u-boot_git.bb to u-boot_${PV}.bb Darren Hart 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2011-05-26 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, Darren Hart Tested via build/install/boot of core-image-minimal with the meta-yocto beagleboard machine config. V2: Fixup the message printed if u-boot is skipped so it: 1) appears on the console 2) prints the name of the including u-boot recipe for reference (instead of a hard coded name) The following changes since commit 1607d7b6809eb3f0aa8d09713a4e467a1f4585a2: IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE: Cleanup machine conf files (2011-05-25 14:07:37 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib dvhart/oe/u-boot http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=dvhart/oe/u-boot Darren Hart (2): u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES u-boot: rename u-boot_git.bb to u-boot_${PV}.bb meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot.inc | 10 +++++++++- .../uboot/{u-boot_git.bb => u-boot_2011.03.bb} | 11 ++++++----- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) rename meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/{u-boot_git.bb => u-boot_2011.03.bb} (64%) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-26 21:12 [PATCH v2 0/2] u-boot updates to make it more bbappend friendly Darren Hart @ 2011-05-26 21:12 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-26 23:24 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] u-boot: rename u-boot_git.bb to u-boot_${PV}.bb Darren Hart 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2011-05-26 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Darren Hart, Chris Larson, Koen Kooi oe-core does not define any machines, so it does not make sense to add machine specific information in the oe-core u-boot recipe and infrastructure. Also note that COMPATIBLE_MACHINES is not easily extended due to its regex syntax: "(machine_a|machine_b)", making it difficult to extend the u-boot recipe in bbappend files without resorting to machine specific overrides. Remove COMPATIBLE_MACHINES and the default UBOOT_MACHINE from the recipe and insert some anonymous python into u-boot.inc to raise SkipPackage if UBOOT_MACHINE is not set (this ensures 'world' still works for machines that can't build u-boot). UBOOT_MACHINE must now be specified in each machine config that requires u-boot. This is an improvement over requiring machine specific overrides in every BSP layer's u-boot_git.bbappend file. For example, a beagleboard machine config currently contains: UBOOT_ENTRYPOINT = "0x80008000" UBOOT_LOADADDRESS = "0x80008000" With this change, it must now contain: UBOOT_MACHINE = "omap3_beagle_config" UBOOT_ENTRYPOINT = "0x80008000" UBOOT_LOADADDRESS = "0x80008000" So long as the SRC_URI in the base recipe can build a working u-boot for a given machine, there is no need to create a u-boot_git.bbappend file. If additional patches are deemed necessary, a BSP layer creates a u-boot_git.bbappend file and extends the SRC_URI to include general or machine specific backports. Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't go anywhere during recipe parsing. Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> Cc: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> Cc: Jason Kridner <jkridner@beagleboard.org> Cc: Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> --- meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot.inc | 10 +++++++++- meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb | 11 ++++++----- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot.inc index 058e3ba..3ffec21 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot.inc +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot.inc @@ -11,7 +11,15 @@ PARALLEL_MAKE="" # GCC 4.5.1 builds unusable binaries using -Os, remove it from OPTFLAGS EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} OPTFLAGS='-O2'" -UBOOT_MACHINE ?= "${MACHINE}_config" +python () { + if not d.getVar("UBOOT_MACHINE", True): + PN = d.getVar("PN", True) + FILE = os.path.basename(d.getVar("FILE", True)) + bb.note("To build %s, see %s for instructions on setting up \ + your machine config" % (PN, FILE)) + raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("because UBOOT_MACHINE is not set") +} + UBOOT_IMAGE ?= "u-boot-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}.bin" UBOOT_SYMLINK ?= "u-boot-${MACHINE}.bin" UBOOT_MAKE_TARGET ?= "all" diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb index 4c8f5df..0fbb9ba 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@ require u-boot.inc +# To build u-boot for your machine, provide the following lines in your machine +# config, replacing the assignments as appropriate for your machine. +# UBOOT_MACHINE = "omap3_beagle_config" +# UBOOT_ENTRYPOINT = "0x80008000" +# UBOOT_LOADADDRESS = "0x80008000" + LICENSE = "GPLv2+" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \ file://README;beginline=1;endline=22;md5=3a00ef51d3fc96e9d6c1bc4708ccd3b5" @@ -12,11 +18,6 @@ PR="r3" SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master;protocol=git" -UBOOT_MACHINE_beagleboard = "omap3_beagle_config" -UBOOT_MACHINE_overo = "omap3_overo_config" - S = "${WORKDIR}/git" PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}" - -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(beagleboard|overo)" -- 1.7.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES Darren Hart @ 2011-05-26 23:24 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-26 23:31 ` Chris Larson 2011-05-27 3:43 ` Darren Hart 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-26 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darren Hart; +Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, openembedded-core On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least > makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't > go anywhere during recipe parsing. Why? We exclude about 30 different recipes when parsing and would you really want to see a usability message from each one when you likely don't care about it? A bb.debug is fine and the user can see it if they run with -D to get more info. A bb.note is just irritating. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-26 23:24 ` Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-26 23:31 ` Chris Larson 2011-05-27 3:43 ` Darren Hart 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2011-05-26 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Darren Hart, Koen Kooi, openembedded-core On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least >> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't >> go anywhere during recipe parsing. > > Why? > > We exclude about 30 different recipes when parsing and would you really > want to see a usability message from each one when you likely don't care > about it? > > A bb.debug is fine and the user can see it if they run with -D to get > more info. A bb.note is just irritating. As alternative, *If* there's a need for a one time message when building, which is questionable, and assuming the variable is configuration, not recipe bound, one could always install a ConfigParsed event handler and warn if e.g. UBOOT_ENTRYPOINT or UBOOT_LOADADDRESS are set and UBOOT_MACHINE is not. -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-26 23:24 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-26 23:31 ` Chris Larson @ 2011-05-27 3:43 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-27 8:40 ` Richard Purdie 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2011-05-27 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, openembedded-core On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least >> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't >> go anywhere during recipe parsing. > > Why? > My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing the requisite configuration bits in your machine config. Since the debug lines don't get logged anywhere, and you have to clear tmp/cache in order to retrigger the SkipPackage event with a new bitbake command (even with -D), I thought it the most user friendly to ensure the message made it out somewhere where it wouldn't get lost. > We exclude about 30 different recipes I didn't realize it was so many, it's difficult to tell just grepping for SkipPackage. > when parsing and would you really > want to see a usability message from each one when you likely don't care > about it? See above for my rationale on when you "care about it". > > A bb.debug is fine and the user can see it if they run with -D to get > more info. The user won't see it unless they clear tmp/cache, which isn't very intuitive (or at least it wasn't to me). > A bb.note is just irritating. I can resend with bb.debug() if you feel strongly about it, as apparently you do. I've answered your "why" question, but I don't feel strongly about it. If you want to use bb.debug() I can resend as such (or just repush with that single change). Thanks, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-27 3:43 ` Darren Hart @ 2011-05-27 8:40 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-27 13:56 ` Darren Hart 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darren Hart; +Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, openembedded-core On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 20:43 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > >> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least > >> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't > >> go anywhere during recipe parsing. > > > > Why? > > > > My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build > this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely > an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit > this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing > the requisite configuration bits in your machine config. You've inserted the note at parsing time though so every time anyone builds anything this will show up. In case you wonder why bitbake does this its because it has no idea what the recipe provides until it attempts to parse it. Yes, you can make guesses from filenames but those are just a convenience and BBCLASSEXTEND can make one recipe provide multiple things for example. foo_git.bb containing: PN = "bar" or PROVIDES += "something-else" are both valid things to do too if potentially misleading. > Since the debug lines don't get logged anywhere, and you have to clear > tmp/cache in order to retrigger the SkipPackage event with a new bitbake > command (even with -D), I thought it the most user friendly to ensure > the message made it out somewhere where it wouldn't get lost. > > > We exclude about 30 different recipes > > I didn't realize it was so many, it's difficult to tell just grepping > for SkipPackage. COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST will show more. > > when parsing and would you really > > want to see a usability message from each one when you likely don't care > > about it? > > See above for my rationale on when you "care about it". > > > > > A bb.debug is fine and the user can see it if they run with -D to get > > more info. > > The user won't see it unless they clear tmp/cache, which isn't very > intuitive (or at least it wasn't to me). > > > A bb.note is just irritating. > > I can resend with bb.debug() if you feel strongly about it, as > apparently you do. I've answered your "why" question, but I don't feel > strongly about it. If you want to use bb.debug() I can resend as such > (or just repush with that single change). Given my comment above (the note appears all the time, not just for world), I do feel strongly about this. Yes, we could do with a better way of showing up which packages were skipped if the user needs to know but this isn't the way to do it and it won't scale. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-27 8:40 ` Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 13:56 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-27 14:46 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2011-05-27 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, openembedded-core On 05/27/2011 01:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 20:43 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >>>> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least >>>> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't >>>> go anywhere during recipe parsing. >>> >>> Why? >>> >> >> My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build >> this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely >> an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit >> this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing >> the requisite configuration bits in your machine config. > > You've inserted the note at parsing time though so every time anyone > builds anything this will show up. Aha! Got it. I changed it and ran a test: bb.note("DEBUG TO FOLLOW") bb.debug(1, "To build %s, see %s for instructions on setting \ up your machine config" % (PN, FILE)) $ rm -rf tmp/cache; bitbake -DDDD u-boot | tee log Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the main build Loading cache...done. Loaded 998 entries from dependency cache. Parsing recipes...NOTE: DEBUG TO FOLLOW done. Parsing of 783 .bb files complete (780 cached, 3 parsed). 1000 targets, 11 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. As you can see, even with -DDDD, the message never makes it to the console. So I agree that bb.note() is inappropriate, unfortunately, bb.debug doesn't appear to be working. I believe it was yesterday... I pushed the bb.debug version to the same contrib branch in case I'm just running on too little sleep and I did something stupid in the above command which I'm not seeing. -- Darren > > In case you wonder why bitbake does this its because it has no idea what > the recipe provides until it attempts to parse it. Yes, you can make > guesses from filenames but those are just a convenience and > BBCLASSEXTEND can make one recipe provide multiple things for example. > > foo_git.bb > > containing: > > PN = "bar" > > or > > PROVIDES += "something-else" > > are both valid things to do too if potentially misleading. > >> Since the debug lines don't get logged anywhere, and you have to clear >> tmp/cache in order to retrigger the SkipPackage event with a new bitbake >> command (even with -D), I thought it the most user friendly to ensure >> the message made it out somewhere where it wouldn't get lost. >> >>> We exclude about 30 different recipes >> >> I didn't realize it was so many, it's difficult to tell just grepping >> for SkipPackage. > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_HOST will show more. > >>> when parsing and would you really >>> want to see a usability message from each one when you likely don't care >>> about it? >> >> See above for my rationale on when you "care about it". >> >>> >>> A bb.debug is fine and the user can see it if they run with -D to get >>> more info. >> >> The user won't see it unless they clear tmp/cache, which isn't very >> intuitive (or at least it wasn't to me). >> >>> A bb.note is just irritating. >> >> I can resend with bb.debug() if you feel strongly about it, as >> apparently you do. I've answered your "why" question, but I don't feel >> strongly about it. If you want to use bb.debug() I can resend as such >> (or just repush with that single change). > > Given my comment above (the note appears all the time, not just for > world), I do feel strongly about this. > > Yes, we could do with a better way of showing up which packages were > skipped if the user needs to know but this isn't the way to do it and it > won't scale. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-27 13:56 ` Darren Hart @ 2011-05-27 14:46 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-27 14:48 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darren Hart; +Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, openembedded-core On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 06:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > On 05/27/2011 01:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 20:43 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > >> On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > >>>> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least > >>>> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't > >>>> go anywhere during recipe parsing. > >>> > >>> Why? > >>> > >> > >> My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build > >> this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely > >> an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit > >> this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing > >> the requisite configuration bits in your machine config. > > > > You've inserted the note at parsing time though so every time anyone > > builds anything this will show up. > > Aha! Got it. I changed it and ran a test: > > bb.note("DEBUG TO FOLLOW") > bb.debug(1, "To build %s, see %s for instructions on setting \ > up your machine config" % (PN, FILE)) > > > $ rm -rf tmp/cache; bitbake -DDDD u-boot | tee log > Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the > main build > Loading cache...done. > Loaded 998 entries from dependency cache. > Parsing recipes...NOTE: DEBUG TO FOLLOW > done. > Parsing of 783 .bb files complete (780 cached, 3 parsed). 1000 targets, > 11 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. > > As you can see, even with -DDDD, the message never makes it to the > console. So I agree that bb.note() is inappropriate, unfortunately, > bb.debug doesn't appear to be working. I believe it was yesterday... The result was cached (780 cached). Try that command after "touch conf/local.conf" and it will be in there. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-27 14:46 ` Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 14:48 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-27 15:13 ` Darren Hart 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Cc: Darren Hart, Chris Larson, Koen Kooi On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 15:46 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 06:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > On 05/27/2011 01:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 20:43 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > >> On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > >>> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > >>>> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least > > >>>> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't > > >>>> go anywhere during recipe parsing. > > >>> > > >>> Why? > > >>> > > >> > > >> My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build > > >> this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely > > >> an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit > > >> this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing > > >> the requisite configuration bits in your machine config. > > > > > > You've inserted the note at parsing time though so every time anyone > > > builds anything this will show up. > > > > Aha! Got it. I changed it and ran a test: > > > > bb.note("DEBUG TO FOLLOW") > > bb.debug(1, "To build %s, see %s for instructions on setting \ > > up your machine config" % (PN, FILE)) > > > > > > $ rm -rf tmp/cache; bitbake -DDDD u-boot | tee log > > Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the > > main build > > Loading cache...done. > > Loaded 998 entries from dependency cache. > > Parsing recipes...NOTE: DEBUG TO FOLLOW > > done. > > Parsing of 783 .bb files complete (780 cached, 3 parsed). 1000 targets, > > 11 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. > > > > As you can see, even with -DDDD, the message never makes it to the > > console. So I agree that bb.note() is inappropriate, unfortunately, > > bb.debug doesn't appear to be working. I believe it was yesterday... > > The result was cached (780 cached). Try that command after "touch > conf/local.conf" and it will be in there. Sorry, the note did appear though. That needs looking into and is possibly a logging problem. Needs fixing as a separate issue though and use of bb.note there isn't the right approach. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-27 14:48 ` Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 15:13 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-27 15:37 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2011-05-27 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On 05/27/2011 07:48 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 15:46 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 06:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >>> >>> On 05/27/2011 01:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 20:43 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >>>>> On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >>>>>>> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least >>>>>>> makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't >>>>>>> go anywhere during recipe parsing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build >>>>> this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely >>>>> an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit >>>>> this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing >>>>> the requisite configuration bits in your machine config. >>>> >>>> You've inserted the note at parsing time though so every time anyone >>>> builds anything this will show up. >>> >>> Aha! Got it. I changed it and ran a test: >>> >>> bb.note("DEBUG TO FOLLOW") >>> bb.debug(1, "To build %s, see %s for instructions on setting \ >>> up your machine config" % (PN, FILE)) >>> >>> >>> $ rm -rf tmp/cache; bitbake -DDDD u-boot | tee log >>> Pseudo is not present but is required, building this first before the >>> main build >>> Loading cache...done. >>> Loaded 998 entries from dependency cache. >>> Parsing recipes...NOTE: DEBUG TO FOLLOW >>> done. >>> Parsing of 783 .bb files complete (780 cached, 3 parsed). 1000 targets, >>> 11 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. >>> >>> As you can see, even with -DDDD, the message never makes it to the >>> console. So I agree that bb.note() is inappropriate, unfortunately, >>> bb.debug doesn't appear to be working. I believe it was yesterday... >> >> The result was cached (780 cached). Try that command after "touch >> conf/local.conf" and it will be in there. > > Sorry, the note did appear though. > > That needs looking into and is possibly a logging problem. Needs fixing > as a separate issue though and use of bb.note there isn't the right > approach. OK, I haven't completely lost it then :-) In that case, are you looking for any additional changes/dialog/acks here? If not, the version with bb.debug() is now in the contrib branch: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib dvhart/oe/u-boot http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=dvhart/oe/u-boot I can resend as V3 if more discussion is desirable. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 2011-05-27 15:13 ` Darren Hart @ 2011-05-27 15:37 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-27 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darren Hart Cc: Koen Kooi, Chris Larson, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 08:13 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > OK, I haven't completely lost it then :-) In that case, are you looking > for any additional changes/dialog/acks here? If not, the version with > bb.debug() is now in the contrib branch: > > git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib dvhart/oe/u-boot > http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=dvhart/oe/u-boot > > I can resend as V3 if more discussion is desirable. No, we're good. Both patches merged to master. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] u-boot: rename u-boot_git.bb to u-boot_${PV}.bb 2011-05-26 21:12 [PATCH v2 0/2] u-boot updates to make it more bbappend friendly Darren Hart 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES Darren Hart @ 2011-05-26 21:12 ` Darren Hart 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2011-05-26 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Darren Hart, Koen Kooi In order to facilitate reuse of the oe-core u-boot recipe, there needs to be some assurance that the oe-core version won't change without a clear indicator to people extending it. By renaming the recipe to include its version string instead of "git", BSP layers can extend a specific base version of u-boot, ie. u-boot_2011.03.bbappend. When 2011.06 becomes available, we can create that file without instantly breaking all the BSPs depending on oe-core version of the recipe. As a matter of policy I would recommend we not carry more than 2 versioned u-boot recipess at any given time. This will provide BSP layers time to migrate to the newer version, without cluttering oe-core with numerous stale versions of u-boot. We may decide later to resurrect u-boot_git.bb as an AUTOREV recipe to faciliate upstream development on u-boot in the oe environment. Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> Cc: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> Cc: Jason Kridner <jkridner@beagleboard.org> --- .../uboot/{u-boot_git.bb => u-boot_2011.03.bb} | 0 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/{u-boot_git.bb => u-boot_2011.03.bb} (100%) diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_2011.03.bb similarity index 100% rename from meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_git.bb rename to meta/recipes-bsp/uboot/u-boot_2011.03.bb -- 1.7.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-27 15:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-05-26 21:12 [PATCH v2 0/2] u-boot updates to make it more bbappend friendly Darren Hart 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES Darren Hart 2011-05-26 23:24 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-26 23:31 ` Chris Larson 2011-05-27 3:43 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-27 8:40 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-27 13:56 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-27 14:46 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-27 14:48 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-27 15:13 ` Darren Hart 2011-05-27 15:37 ` Richard Purdie 2011-05-26 21:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] u-boot: rename u-boot_git.bb to u-boot_${PV}.bb Darren Hart
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.