[yocto] Yocto 2.2 minimum kernel requirement

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:36:24 Khem Raj wrote:
>> > On Oct 31, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>
>> > wrote:>
>> > On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:37:07 Khem Raj wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 7:37 AM, Vuille, Martin (Martin) <vmartin at avaya.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> We are looking at upgrading from Yocto 1.8 to 2.2.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yocto 2.2 has a minimum kernel requirement of 3.2.0.
>> >>>
>> >>> This isn’t an issue for our target (ARMv5, Linux 4.4) but may be
>> >>> an issue for our automated build machines (x86, Linux 2.6.32—CentOS 6.)
>> >>>
>> >>> However, there is a note that says
>> >>> “For x86 and x86_64, you can reset OLDEST_KERNEL
>> >>> <http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.2/mega-manual/mega-manual.html#var-O
>> >>> L
>> >>> DEST_KERNEL> to anything down to 2.6.32 if desired.”
>> >>>
>> >>> Is it possible to configure things such that we can keep supporting the
>> >>> old kernel for the SDK while we support a more up-to-date kernel for the
>> >>> target?
>> >>
>> >> I think that should be the default. We do not set it for x86/nativesdk
>> >> case. File a ticket if thats not the case.
>> >
>> > SDK_OLDEST_KERNEL is the variable that's supposed to be controlling this,
>> > but I noticed a couple of weeks ago that we aren't feeding
>> > SDK_OLDEST_KERNEL into glibc for nativesdk, so we should fix that - I've
>> > filed a bug [1] and will sort that out. I think we should probably set
>> > the SDK_OLDEST_KERNEL default for x86 to 2.6.32 at the same time - I
>> > assume there are no objections?
>>
>> Yes, its for nativesdk/glibc, I think for target x86 we should keep 3.2
>
> Right, I'm not proposing changing the target value.
>
> It turns out setting SDK_OLDEST_KERNEL in an arch-specific manner is a little
> awkward since there aren't overrides that can be used for the SDK value, but
> we can do it from conf/machine-sdk/*.conf though.
>

yes understood, we do have aarch64 as another option for nativesdk but
practically
not there yet I guess.

> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre