On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:18:07PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 9/27/12 2:12 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:58:35PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > >> Let me preface this by I have read the patch set.. Martin asked me to > >> comment on > >> the items below... > >> > >> On 9/27/12 3:37 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:45:44PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > >>>>> * bitbake.conf has OPTDEFAULTTUNE with weak default value of DEFAULTTUNE > >>>>> * this way xscale or arm926ejs is not used by default when some machine > >>>>> includes its tune*.inc, but it's easy for DISTRO to say it wants > >>>>> OPTDEFAULTTUNE for some packages or always (if they don't want to > >>>>> share built packages between xscale and arm926ejs). > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 1 + > >>>>> meta/conf/machine/include/tune-arm926ejs.inc | 3 ++- > >>>>> meta/conf/machine/include/tune-xscale.inc | 3 ++- > >>>>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf > >>>>> index 9b41749..e433fcb 100644 > >>>>> --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf > >>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf > >>>>> @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ HOST_LD_ARCH = "${TARGET_LD_ARCH}" > >>>>> HOST_AS_ARCH = "${TARGET_AS_ARCH}" > >>>>> HOST_EXEEXT = "" > >>>>> > >>>>> +OPTDEFAULTTUNE ??= "${DEFAULTTUNE}" > >>>>> TUNE_ARCH ??= "INVALID" > >>>>> TUNE_CCARGS ??= "" > >>>>> TUNE_LDARGS ??= "" > >>>> > >>>> As I've said previously, I do not think OPTDEFAULTTUNE is clear in usage > >>>> or in meaning and we need to find a better solution. I'm therefore not > >>>> keen on this change. > >>> > >>> OK, what about the rest of patchset (without OPTDEFAULTTUNE bits) to use > >>> different PKGARCH for different TUNE_CCARGS? > >> > >> I've been an advocate for a while that the processor optimization (CCARGS) > >> does > >> make it into the PKGARCH. ARMPKGSFX_CPU seems like a reasonable approach > >> to do > >> this. It allows each tune to set something to tell people what that > >> binary is > >> really built for, and for the 'base' tunes (i.e. armv5) it can be left off. > >> > >> The only concern I have with that is: > >> > >> +ARMPKGSFX_CPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "arm926ejs", > >> "-arm926ejs", "", d)}" > >> > >> That probably should be a .= instead of just '='. That way if the user > >> loads > >> multiple compatible tunes the right ARMPKGSFX_CPU will be used. > >> (Alternatively > >> using the overrides would work as well for this.. i.e. > >> ARMPKGSFX_CPU_tune-arm926ejs instead... > > > > OK. > > > >> I see Patch 5/5 instead moves toward the ARMPKGARCH usage instead... This > >> is > >> fine as well, and it was designed to be overriden.. but again the .= or > >> -tune_... syntax should be used... > > > > I tend to prefer ARMPKGARCH as it's shorter xscale-te/armv5te-xscale. > > > > But not sure what to do with all "lower" PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS: > > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-xscale-be = "${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-armv5teb}" > > do we want PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-armv5teb only or also something like > > armv4t-xscale? > > > > Well whole PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS has too many entries already (opkg update > > would try to download many feeds but only a few does exist). > > The PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS should contain all of the 'compatible' arch names. > Which of course feed into the list of feeds used by the various packaging > systems. I think it's up to the distribution to modify or limit the feeds > resolved, but I don't know if there is a clean way to do this. I always > error > on listing more then less, because I don't know how people are going to want > to > mix and match things. (And a BSP or end user can always just define what the > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS value should be.)
Yes that's what I do now, but I'm not too happy about it :/ SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS ?= "armv4t armv5te armv6-novfp armv7a-vfp-neon x86_64 x86" SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS_armv7a ?= "armv7a-vfp-neon" SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS_armv6 ?= "armv6-novfp" > >> Anyway, my point in this is I like having the stuff unique, but we need to > >> be > >> sure that you can specify more then one tune file during a build w/o > >> clashes. > >> > >>>> I also still think this is a distro packaging issue and should be solved > >>>> by the distro, even if that means more complexity there. That is the > >>>> right place for this particular complexity IMO. I'm happy to support > >>>> that from the core but not in something as user visible and confusing as > >>>> this variable. > >>> > >>> Agreed OPTDEFAULTTUNE is to help distro configs, because complexity > >>> there will be much worse then when it's defined in tune-* files, because > >>> now will have to define DEFAULTTUNE/OPTDEFAULTTUNE for each MACHINE (or > >>> TUNE_FEATURE) it supports and it's less orthogonal (machine/distro > >>> config) then it could be. > >> > >> I really don't have a strong opinion on this either way. I know for the > >> stuff > >> I've done in the past (not oe-based) we've just manually configured (the > >> equivalent of the distro conf) with the information on the handful of > >> items that > >> people wanted optimized the most... eglibc, openssl, mysql/posgresql... > >> otherwise folks don't seem to care, and re-use works fine. > >> > >> If the list is small (i.e. less then 10 packages) that specifying it via > >> package > >> specific overrides in the distro file should be fine.. if it's more then 10 > >> (typically) then we need to start looking for another approach. > >> > >> I'd almost suggest in the distro file you could do: > >> > >> OPTDEFAULTTUNE = "$@{...}" where ... is check for something set by the BSP > >> (or > >> elsewhere), if set use that value, otherwise using the DEFAULTTUNE value. > >> > >> DEFAULTTUNE-<pn> = "${OPTDEFAULTTUNE}" > > > > Yes but first I have to say: > > DEFAULTTUNE_spitz = armv5te > > OPTDEFAULTTUNE_spitz = xscale > > DEFAULTTUNE_qemuarm = armv5te > > OPTDEFAULTTUNE_qemuarm = arm926ejs > > or > > DEFAULTTUNE_tune-xscale = armv5te > > OPTDEFAULTTUNE_tun_xscale = xscale > > DEFAULTTUNE_tune-arm926ejs = armv5te > > OPTDEFAULTTUNE_tune-arm926ejs = arm926ejs > > > > to know what's OPTDEFAULTTUNE and DEFAULTTUNE for given MACHINE if it's > > not in defined tune-xscale/tune-arm926ejs. > > I assume that a distribution will be (bb)appending, or defining their own > BSPs. > And in that case it's pretty easy to add both the DEFAULTTUNE and > OPTDEFAULTTUNE line to the BSP configuration file. (And if someone uses a > different distribution, then the DEFAULT is used as that is the standard > method.) Yes, but how should I .bbappend machine config? e.g. qemuarm.conf in oe-core? Yes I can add that to my BSPs, but if I call it OPTDEFAULTTUNE then everybody else (who is interested in my BSP but has own distro) needs to agree on name OPTDEFAULTTUNE. That's why I wanted this defined in tune-* files which are shared in oe-core and used by everybody I guess. > > And that's what I didn't want to include in my distro config (and then > > explaining to someone that when adding MACHINE foo he has to send patch > > for distro config). > > Ya I understand. This is an odd situation for many embedded systems. You > want > to reuse packages that aren't optimally tuned -- but you still want a few > tuned > packages. It's certainly a usecase we need to support -- but I'm not sure in > the end how people end up doing this. > > I know most of my commercial customers just want everything to be tuned for > the > target BSP.. and they build new distributions for each product they implement. Ok, but having both OPTDEFAULTTUNE and DEFAULTTUNE in tune-* allows both use cases to coexist without any complex configuration on distro side. Thanks again for constructive comment. Cheers, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core