[yocto] [PATCH 1/2] meta-crownbay: switch to linux-yocto-3.2 kernel

Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfield at windriver.com
Tue Mar 13 21:12:06 PDT 2012 

On 12-03-14 12:05 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 03/13/2012 08:08 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 12-03-13 11:03 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 22:40 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi at intel.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:30 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some thoughts on this with respect to cleaning up and simplifying the
>>>>>> recipes per our earlier discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/12/2012 09:37 PM, tom.zanussi at intel.com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi at intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Switch crownbay and crownbay-noemgd to the 3.2 kernel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi<tom.zanussi at intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf    |    2 ++
>>>>>>>    meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf           |    2 ++
>>>>>>>    .../linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend              |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>    .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend  |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>    4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>    create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>>    create mode 100644 meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>>> index 2c80bd8..af85b00 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay-noemgd.conf
>>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>>>    #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems, without Intel-proprietary graphics bits
>>>>>>>    # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>>> index 2c1ef3d..1458bff 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/conf/machine/crownbay.conf
>>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
>>>>>>>    #@DESCRIPTION: Machine configuration for Crown Bay systems
>>>>>>>    # i.e. E660 + EG20T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto ?= "3.2%"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
>>>>>>>    require conf/machine/include/ia32-base.inc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 0000000..dee9bce
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-rt_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we start putting cfg/smp.scc in the BSP scc file directly rather
>>>>>> than in the recipe itself. This can be a follow-on patch, or just with
>>>>>> the next kernel release even. But I wanted to point it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I saw that and agree - I just don't want to spend the time to do
>>>>> all that now.  I basically have this week to get them all moved over
>>>>> into a basically functional state and will submit patches to do this and
>>>>> the below as follow-ons once the basics are out of the way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +# Update the following to use a different BSP branch or meta SRCREV
>>>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay-noemgd ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#KBRANCH_crownbay = "yocto/standard/preempt-rt/base"
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> +#SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto-rt_crownbay ?= XXXX
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 0000000..3b02076
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-crownbay/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_3.2.bbappend
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>>>>> +FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/${PN}:"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay  = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe crownbay no longer requires special patches right? Can we just
>>>>>> use the standard/default/base branch here and squash the crownbay branch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At the moment it doesn't, and I'll probably submit a patch to do that
>>>>> for everything that it make sense for again after things are functional
>>>>> with the simple changes first.
>>>>
>>>> There's one catch with this. We currently have the graphics drivers staged as
>>>> topic branches so they can be in tree, and be kept pristine. The BSPs merge
>>>> the graphics topic branch they want, and we can leverage common commits
>>>> across all the users.
>>>>
>>>> If you drop the BSP branch, then the graphics changes need to be universally
>>>> safe for all similar BSPs, since that merge will now be to a shared branch.
>>>> That's normally fine, but for the case where we have multiple emgd versions,
>>>> it can break things.
>>>>
>>>> We have complete flexibility to how we stage the branches, and how we
>>>> generate the content that is built, so this can change .. but that's
>>>> how we currently
>>>> have it setup. Those graphics merges are board specific changes and require
>>>> a branch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to have per-BSP machine branches.
>>> They're cheap, and I don't really see the reason to be so parsimonious
>>> with them.  Also, they're always there, so if we do need to have a place
>>> to put the odd machine-specific patch now and then we don't have to add
>>> a new branch when we need to add those patches, or remove them once
>>> they're gone.  I guess the system was kind of designed for that (machine
>>> branches, even if empty)?
>>
>> Exactly. We can collapse them where it makes sense, and keep there where
>> we need them. A machine branch is just that, a topic branch for development
>> and implicit documentation of a supported board. If a board may be extended
>> in the future .. a branch is nice to have.
>>
>> I'm in favour of keeping the count in control, but see no need to collapse
>> them down completely. That and I spent an hour trying to figure out
>> how to do some fancy merge logic and while it could be done, it just
>> makes things more complex. I'd prefer branches to overly complex
>> branch management logic.
>>
>
> Agreed on the concept. What I'm not understanding is how is having to
> get yocto/emgd-1.10 to merge with standard/base any different than
> having to get it to merge with:
>
> standard/default/crownbay
> standard/default/common-pc-64/sugarbay
> standard/default/fri2
>
> etc.
>
> emgd isn't premerged into these machine branches if I understand the scc
> files correctly, so how is this any different? (I'm sure it is, I trust
> you here, I would just like to understand what I'm missing).

When a tree is built from scratch (from the meta data + patch repo), or
when BSP validation runs across a tree. All BSPs are constructed in a
single tree. If you have merges into common branches, the third, fourth
or fifth one is going to eventually explode.

That being said, I *can* inhibit the merges during tree construction and
only do it when individual boards are built. But in that scenario, we miss
an opportunity for automated/bulk validation that the merges are safe
and valid.

So your observation is correct, and it's just a use case of the descriptions

That's why I mentioned that we can collapse them, but there is an increase
in complexity. Something to keep in our back pocket, since it's there
to use when we need it.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> --
> Darren
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_crownbay-noemgd = "crownbay-noemgd"
>>>>>>> +KMACHINE_crownbay-noemgd  = "crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KBRANCH_crownbay-noemgd  = "standard/default/crownbay"
>>>>>>> +KERNEL_FEATURES_append_crownbay-noemgd += " cfg/smp.scc"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_machine_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "4471c11c7755727219b673cb887d8a13b8715aba"
>>>>>>> +SRCREV_meta_pn-linux-yocto_crownbay-noemgd ?= "64840f55ee144e9814278eaa8e3f33dd60da892c"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The meta SRCREV shouldn't be unique from the base linux-yocto_3.2.bb
>>>>>> recipe, so this can be dropped and save the effort of updating it later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really want to let the meta SRCREV float - I've run into a
>>>>> couple nasty problems in the past letting that happen. i.e. nobody does
>>>>> runtime testing of the BSPs when they change the meta SRCREV in the base
>>>>> recipe.
>>>>
>>>> runtime testing is the hard part. I can build them .. but can't boot them all!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, which is why I'm happy to push the SRCREVs for a BSP once I've
>>> tested it...
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we use the standard/default/base branch, the machine SRCREV can also
>>>>>> be dropped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, if the machine branch changes to standard/default/base, I'll
>>>>> change that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> yocto mailing list
>>>>> yocto at yoctoproject.org
>>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yocto mailing list
>>> yocto at yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>
>

More information about the yocto mailing list