Meta layer for pine64

Meta layer for pine64

[Mont3z Claros]

Hi all,

I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64

I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
environmental variable in u-boot recipe.

Cheers,
Montez

Re: Meta layer for pine64

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi Montez,

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:01:41 Mont3z Claros wrote:
> I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
> You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
> 
> I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
> major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
> compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
> components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
> The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
> environmental variable in u-boot recipe.

If you plan on maintaining this layer then it would be great if you could 
submit it to the OE layer index (at http://layers.openembedded.org ).

Thanks,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Meta layer for pine64

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.claro5@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
> You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
>
> I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
> major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
> compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
> components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
> The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
> environmental variable in u-boot recipe.

I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
stand alone app
in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
would be possible
to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to see if
that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.

Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.

>
> Cheers,
> Montez
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: Meta layer for pine64

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1483 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.claro5@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
> > You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
> >
> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe.
> 
> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
> stand alone app
> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
> would be possible
> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to see if
> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.

Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs
to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot.

> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.

Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :)  iirc all of the
models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a
bad idea.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Meta layer for pine64

[Khem Raj]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.claro5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
>> > You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
>> >
>> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
>> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
>> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
>> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
>> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
>> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe.
>>
>> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
>> stand alone app
>> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
>> would be possible
>> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to see if
>> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.
>
> Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs
> to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot.
>
>> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
>> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.
>
> Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :)  iirc all of the
> models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a
> bad idea.

You can always write a recipe to package a prebuilt u-boot.

>
> --
> Tom

Re: Meta layer for pine64

[Mont3z Claros]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.claro5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
>>> > You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
>>> >
>>> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
>>> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
>>> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
>>> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
>>> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
>>> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe.
>>>
>>> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
>>> stand alone app
>>> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
>>> would be possible
>>> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to see if
>>> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.
>>
>> Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs
>> to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot.
>>
>>> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
>>> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.
>>
>> Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :)  iirc all of the
>> models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a
>> bad idea.
>
> You can always write a recipe to package a prebuilt u-boot.
>

Hi all,

unfortunately the pine64 mainlilne u-boot is not compatible with the
kernel I'm compiling.
To package a prebuilt u-boot could be one solution. At the moment I'm
investigating the possibility
of patching u-boot to compile it with multilib.

Thx,
Montez

Re: Meta layer for pine64

[Mont3z Claros]

Hi all,

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.claro5@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.claro5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
>>>> > You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
>>>> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
>>>> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
>>>> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
>>>> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
>>>> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
>>>> stand alone app
>>>> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
>>>> would be possible
>>>> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to see if
>>>> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.
>>>
>>> Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs
>>> to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot.
>>>
>>>> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
>>>> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.
>>>
>>> Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :)  iirc all of the
>>> models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a
>>> bad idea.
>>
>> You can always write a recipe to package a prebuilt u-boot.
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> unfortunately the pine64 mainlilne u-boot is not compatible with the
> kernel I'm compiling.
> To package a prebuilt u-boot could be one solution. At the moment I'm
> investigating the possibility
> of patching u-boot to compile it with multilib.
>

from my research unfortunately the Cortex A53 from pine64 boots in
32-bit mode with armv7-a instruction set.
This means I cannot use -mabi=ilp32 from aarch64 toolchain to compile it.

After some discussion I also found that if I try to use pine64
mainline u-boot than I would need add support to every
weird interface that AW came up with. Which is something I don't even
understand. :-)

So, I'm considering to leave as it is for now and I'll try to add
recipes for mainline u-boot and mainline kernel (which is still beta).

Thanks,
Montez