[yocto] Problem with BSP supporting different machines

[Markus Hubig]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:48:30AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Markus Hubig <mhubig at imko.de> wrote:

<snip>

> > Comparing the output of "bitbake -e linux-yocto" for both MACHINE settings
> > I notice that for stamp9g20 KMACHINE is "stamp9g20" but for portuxg20 it's
> > "common-pc", which results in these "updateme" command:
> >
> > | updateme --branch standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs -DKDESC=common-pc:standard
> > |  --feature features/netfilter --feature features/taskstats arm common-pc
> > |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/hardware.cfg
> > |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/non-hardware.cfg
> > |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20.cfg
> > |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20-preempt-rt.scc
> > |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20.scc
> > |  poky/meta-stamp9g20/recipes-kernel/linux/files/portuxg20/portuxg20-standard.scc
> >
> > Which again (I think ...) leads to a kernel compile error ...
> >
> > Unfortunately I was not able to find out why the KMACHINE variable is not setup
> > correctly with my BSP for PortuxG20 ...

Damn! Found the problem, just a typo :-)

| -KMACHINE_portux9g20  = "portuxg20"
| +KMACHINE_portuxg20  = "portuxg20"

> Is this the same BSP producing the kconf check warnings on denzil ? I
> ran tests this morning and denzil itself is clean, so there's definitely
> something wrong in the layer.

Yes it's the same BSP and the kconf_check warnings are persistent!

| WARNING: Can't find any BSP hardware or required configuration fragments.
| WARNING: Looked at 
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/hdw_frags.txt
| and
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs/required_frags.txt
| in directory:
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/arm-versatile-926ejs

As I mentiond before the files kconf_check should (IMHO) have a look
at are in:

| linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20

If I ran the kconf_check manually I get an output, but not a very
promissing one :(

| This BSP sets 4 invalid/obsolete kernel options.
| These config options are not offered anywhere within this kernel.
| The full list can be found in your workspace at:
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/invalid.cfg
| 
| This BSP sets 10 kernel options that are possibly non-hardware related.
| The full list can be found in your workspace at:
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/specified_non_hdw.cfg
| 
| WARNING: There were 17 hardware options requested that do not
|          have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file.
|          This probably means you aren't getting the config you wanted.
| The full list can be found in your workspace at:
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/mismatch.cfg
| 
| Waiting a second to make sure you get a chance to see this...
| ** NOTE: There were 0 required options requested that do not
|          have a corresponding value present in the final ".config" file.
|          This is a violation of the policy defined by the higher level config
| The full list can be found in your workspace at:
|  linux/meta/cfg/standard/default/portuxg20/missing_required.cfg

So I'm not shure if my BSP is creating the kernel I wanna have ...

> If this is the same BSP, I can have a look and see about solving the
> two problems at once.

This would be very nice! I really stuck here ... The BSP can be found at:

https://bitbucket.org/imko/meta-stamp9g20 (branch denzil)

Cheers, Markus