> -----Original Message----- > From: John Crispin [mailto:j...@phrozen.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:16 PM > To: Y.T. Jiang > Cc: LEDE Development List > Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > > > > On 27/09/2016 13:39, Y.T. Jiang wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > After the survey found, the error are from a old usb2.0(USB_EHCI_FSL) > driver which is usually used for powerpc arch, not for layerscape > ls1043ardb(arm64 arch) Soc. > > The default kernel config and packages not enable the old usb2.0 driver > in my patch. It should be enabled by: > > [x] Select all target specific packages by default [x] Select all > > kernel module packages by default [x] Select all userspace packages by > > > > Further investigation found, if remove the kernel patch 8041, can avoid > USB_EHCI_FSL be compiled. But the patch hint, USB_EHCI_FSL will appear in > other arch. > > 8041-usb-kconfig-remove-dependency-FSL_SOC-for-ehci-fsl-d.patch > > "usb: kconfig: remove dependency FSL_SOC for ehci fsl driver " > > CONFIG_USB_EHCI_FSL is not dependent on FSL_SOC, it can be built on > non-PPC platforms. > > ... > > 21 config USB_EHCI_FSL > > 22 tristate "Support for Freescale PPC on-chip EHCI USB > controller" > > 23 - depends on FSL_SOC > > 24 + depends on USB_EHCI_HCD > > ... > > > > so this patch is indeed added by your series, yet the module does not > build. i would suggest dropping this patch as it seems totally unrelated > and in fact makes it not work. does your target use FSL EHCI support ? > > John > Yes, I double check the patches, it not need indeed. In fact, some patches was backported by other colleagues, who not familiar with special IP block and mixed with other unnecessary patches. I will drop it and create a new patch, after functional validation then submit a new pull request. Thank you John. [Y.T. Jiang]
> > If have other better ways in dealing with the dependencies in LEDE? > > > > > > Thanks & Best Regards > > Jiang Yutang > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Crispin [mailto:j...@phrozen.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:34 PM > >> To: Y.T. Jiang > >> Cc: LEDE Development List > >> Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> i just tried V5 and when building the target with all packages > >> selected i run into some errors > >> > >> make[5]: Entering directory > >> `/home/blogic/source/build_dir/target-aarch64_armv8-a_musl-1.1.15/lin > >> ux- > >> layerscape_64b/linux-4.4.21' > >> CHK include/config/kernel.release > >> CHK include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h > >> CHK include/generated/utsrelease.h > >> CHK include/generated/bounds.h > >> CHK include/generated/timeconst.h > >> CHK include/generated/asm-offsets.h > >> CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh > >> CC [M] drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.o In file included from > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:39:0: > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h: In function 'ehci_readl': > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h:741:9: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'readl' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> return readl(regs); > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h: In function 'ehci_writel': > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci.h:768:3: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'writel' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> writel(val, regs); > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c: In function 'fsl_ehci_drv_probe': > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:130:3: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'clrsetbits_be32' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> clrsetbits_be32(hcd->regs + FSL_SOC_USB_CTRL, > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c: In function 'ehci_fsl_setup_phy': > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:205:4: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'clrbits32' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> clrbits32(non_ehci + FSL_SOC_USB_CTRL, > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:244:9: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'in_be32' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> if (!(in_be32(non_ehci + FSL_SOC_USB_CTRL) & PHY_CLK_VALID)) { > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c: In function 'ehci_fsl_usb_setup': > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:276:3: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'out_be32' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> out_be32(non_ehci + FSL_SOC_USB_SNOOP1, 0x0 | SNOOP_SIZE_2GB); > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:293:9: error: implicit declaration of > >> function 'mfspr' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> svr = mfspr(SPRN_SVR); > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:293:15: error: 'SPRN_SVR' undeclared > >> (first use in this function) > >> svr = mfspr(SPRN_SVR); > >> ^ > >> drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c:293:15: note: each undeclared identifier > >> is reported only once for each function it appears in > >> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > >> > >> to reproduce this run menuconfig and then Global build settings ---> > >> [x] Select all target specific packages by default > >> [x] Select all kernel module packages by default > >> [x] Select all userspace packages by default > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> > >> On 21/09/2016 16:21, Y.T. Jiang wrote: > >>> Hi Rafał and John, > >>> > >>> I update the patch and pull a new requests(329), please check and > >> review, thanks! > >>> https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/329 > >>> > >>> V5 patch update summary: > >>> 1.Copyrights assigned to myself. > >>> 2.Introduce DEVICE_TITLE and DEVICE_PACKAGES. > >>> 3.Rename patches prefix with 1xxx,2xxx... > >>> 4.Refresh patches by "make target/linux/refresh V=s" > >>> 5.Move default packages to DEFAULT_PACKAGES. > >>> 6.Optimize Build/mk_firmware. > >>> > >>> Thanks & Best Regards > >>> Jiang Yutang > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Lede-dev [mailto:lede-dev-boun...@lists.infradead.org] On > >>>> Behalf Of Y.T. Jiang > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 8:28 PM > >>>> To: Rafa? Mi?ecki > >>>> Cc: LEDE Development List; John Crispin > >>>> Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > >>>> > >>>> Hi Rafał, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for the detailed comment! > >>>> > >>>> Update status: > >>>> prefixed with ">" --done > >>>> Copyright --done > >>>> make target/linux/refresh V=s --done > >>>> Patches prefix with 1xxx,2xxx...refer target/linux/generic/PATCHES > >>>> --done > >>>> using DEVICE_TITLE DEVICE_PACKAGES...refer > >>>> target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile --ongoing > >>>> > >>>> After building and features validate, I will submit a new version > >> patch. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks & Best Regards > >>>> Jiang Yutang > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zaj...@gmail.com] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:55 PM > >>>>> To: Y.T. Jiang > >>>>> Cc: John Crispin; LEDE Development List > >>>>> Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > >>>>> > >>>>> On 19 September 2016 at 12:36, Y.T. Jiang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> Thank you for your review and suggestion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sure. One more note: please take a look at your mailer > configuration. > >>>>> It should keep all quotes prefixed with "> " to keep discussion > clear. > >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zaj...@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:01 PM > >>>>>> To: John Crispin > >>>>>> Cc: LEDE Development List; Y.T. Jiang > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [LEDE-DEV] merging the layerscape target > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 18 September 2016 at 14:24, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>> i have just spent some time reviewing the layerscape PR [1] and > >>>>>>> started a full build of it. its starting to look good and i > >>>>>>> cannot see any blockers. if anyone has any hold on this please > >>>>>>> let me know in the next couple of days. if i dont get any vetos > >>>>>>> i will > >> merge it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I can see following Copyright line over and over: > >>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 OpenWrt.org > >>>>>> Yutang: did you really sign a contract with OpenWrt that included > >>>>> passing your copyrights to the OpenWrt project? If not, you should > >>>>> just keep Copyrights assigned to yourself. > >>>>>> I really would like assigning copyrights to projects where it > >>>>>> doesn't > >>>>> apply. > >>>>>> [I do not sign a contract with OpenWrt indeed. I refer to some > >>>>>> others target while developing/backporting layerscape, I find > >>>>>> almost of targets included OpenWrt.org Copyright, so I also put > >>>>>> it in my code files. Now should I replace " Copyright (C) 2016 > >> OpenWrt.org" > >>>> with " > >>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com>" ? or > >>>>>> retain the both copyright: "Copyright (C) LEDE project, Jiang > >>>>>> Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com>" ?] > >>>>> > >>>>> You're correct, current sources are messy about this. I'm trying > >>>>> to stop adding mode incorrectly copyrighted code. > >>>>> > >>>>> You should only have something like: > >>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Jiang Yutang <yutang.ji...@nxp.com> for the > >>>>> code you have written. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> What about using some generic profile only and then using > >>>>>> DEVICE_TITLE > >>>>> DEVICE_PACKAGES to specify modules that should be included on > rootfs? > >>>>>> [I will try to use the two variables.] > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks! This will allow building images for customized boards with > >>>>> a single "make" call. It's part of recently introduced > >>>>> TARGET_PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS system. You may take a look at > >>>>> target/linux/bcm53xx/image/Makefile as an example. There is only 1 > >>>>> subtarget, but it should give you a hint anyway. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Would that be possible to split patches into accepted ones > >>>>>> (backports) > >>>>> and LEDE-specific ones? > >>>>>> [The kernel patches: dpaa/qbman/fman/etc. it is really too big > >>>>>> and interference review LEDE-specially code. I will split those > >>>>>> kernel patches in folder patches-4.4 as the second, and keep the > >>>>>> rest as fist LEDE-specific, what do you think about it?] > >>>>> > >>>>> For generic patches we have a following guide: > >>>>> target/linux/generic/PATCHES > >>>>> > >>>>> You may try to follow this, if possible. E.g. you could use 0xxx > >>>>> prefix for upstream accepted patches and some other prefix 1xxx, > >>>>> 2xxx, or whatever applicable for other ones. > >>>>> > >>>>> It isn't a strict rule for targets, but it should make your target > >>>>> easier to maintain I believe. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Please refresh all target patches, right now I can see they > >>>>>> contain all > >>>>> these things like: > >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index > >>>>>> 4cb98aa..a8a97bd 100644 > >>>>>> 1.7.9.5 > >>>>>> [I found it have conflicts in current kernel version with two > >>>>>> patches(arm64/mm related, 0060 and 0061) while backporting the > >>>>>> dpaa/qbman/fman driver, but I'm unacquainted with both mm and > >>>>>> dpaa, our dpaa team are engaged in do upstream work and can't > >>>>>> help me. So I revert the two patch to bypass this issue > >>>>>> temporary, I would like to wait for more leisure time then to > >>>>>> thorough investigate and solve it.] > >>>>> > >>>>> I think you misunderstood me. I don't have anything against your > >>>>> patches, just the format. Please call make target/linux/refresh > >>>>> V=s and that will convert all your patches to the expected format > >>>>> :) > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Rafał > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Lede-dev mailing list > >>>> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
