From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id DBEACE00B81; Tue, 30 May 2017 18:16:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.86.89.63 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.86.89.63 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226F5E00B58 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 18:16:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ix.netcom.com; s=dk12062016; t=1496193372; bh=xacRloirs3r/XlVas2tmySQXXTWT6QQ7+e8y K2jvOeo=; h=Received:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; b=L Pu4DV2EvVh2dfSGdiZloA4/8RSoKPoQrHEQfk7jHxJ2Hw7+u4wWK4p+aQI5f/ebaxQj xvCxr4BL7OoKXhro8JIPX31JDDU5NAQsE9ynYVcUD4znZNi2DGLF7i4g3f8pqkIc+W0 h+5HAqhhzJV80C70VFiXhD1Nmd5eHuRZ6jTEICHVvJAuU+Av6HskhOv8gQMSEyvi7xl GhIoAqQxD8YLAzD/AeiIdUDFu950Nv9fy5vSIrRiIyqHpkywQFQm0Rw7i0X8vFhgjmL zcupMtV6+YWJu2mDlp81d+Hk1sd4DZR9xYPC8pQvy7e+1O0q0TspCYYWvTKAidLiSml r95vtQ== DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016; d=ix.netcom.com; b=ULqUoR9RokAhsAVnyL26WXMCKSnUVa3++V1a8lp/9AGBWv4zez4vR9wlMPtH7dK8FlaSZp/V+DFD/YZEK4X144Mu4S0cFb4ge3lNvQZPo+XpnLrbWUCVvL60PBqL/yvqBl31AzeaR/+vBxlkWCe8MLfQWTzjexKU3JacuzT8ZWzAOIqpbmZsU2OssamzIaQGYHlRjamj4yZQ5bkSWa667QftaBU02DdxYWMBgCLFQdG59w1BesgUU8zEcKmprqoCjH4wsx5n/ADuCmNFKsTvg/ZYj3OHyCsGNv/HfrTDXZp9++Sxc7n3CEEf3IZMURNtq6zc7D04rd6FTKEaJSXbHQ==; h=Received:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [45.49.236.199] (helo=PAULD) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1dFsF8-0006Xd-NX for yocto@yoctoproject.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 21:16:10 -0400 From: "Paul D. DeRocco" To: References: <8C8F5C9C1BB04040A6555EFD5B0B5131@PAULD> In-Reply-To: <8C8F5C9C1BB04040A6555EFD5B0B5131@PAULD> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 18:15:48 -0700 Message-ID: <6DDD0E6DF5E245EEBEE64A478C162BBD@PAULD> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AdLYTEC+dhsmH1pLREW03Q6nGw/bpQBWAj+A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.23651 X-ELNK-Trace: bd7d5d4e6f8f652c74cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e51960688c5c1b73d53d979716f979e40bca1db33350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 45.49.236.199 Subject: Re: Kernel config fragments ignored X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 01:16:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Paul D. DeRocco > > I ported a working build from Fido to Morty, made a few > tweaks in response > to error messages (mostly updating version numbers), but it's > not finding > my kernel configuration fragments. This is supposed to be an i386 arch > system, but it insists upon building an x86_64 kernel. The > .config file it > generates does not include my configuration fragments, which contain > things like CONFIG_64BIT=n and CONFIG_X86_32=y. I'm still stumped by this, but I've debugged it further. My top level chroma32-bsp-preempt-rt.scc file contains (among other things) the line include ktypes/preempt-rt/preempt-rt.scc nopatch Building the kernel copies the following files into tmp/work/chroma32_bsp-poky-linux/linux-yocto-rt/4.8.12+blahblah chroma32-bsp-user-config.cfg chroma32-bsp-user-features.scc (empty) but it doesn't copy the following files anywhere chroma32-bsp-preempt-rt.scc chroma32-bsp.scc chroma32-bsp.cfg so none of the values from either .cfg file appear in the resulting .config file. If I change the above line to include ktypes/standard/standard.scc nopatch then tmp/work/chroma32_bsp-poky-linux/linux-yocto-rt/4.8.12+blahblah contains chroma32-bsp-preempt-rt.scc chroma32-bsp-user-config.cfg chroma32-bsp-user-features.scc (empty) and tmp/work-shared/chroma32-bsp/kernel-source/.kernel-meta/configs/standard contains chroma32-bsp.cfg chroma32-bsp-user-config.cfg and everything in them is included in the .config file. Both the preempt-rt.scc and standard.scc files pull in a lot of stuff, and they are quite different from each other. What difference between the two could account for my config fragments being ignored when I use the first one? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com