On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 02:12:30PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:20:05PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 06:11:23PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:17:19AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> > >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@denix.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> > From: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com>
> >> > >> ...
> >> > >> > +++
> >> > >> > b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils/0001-tools-env-fix-build-error.patch
> >> > >> > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> >> > >> > +From ee2d75513452aa6d5306fd380104adc8a2f6d8f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> >> > >> > 2001
> >> > >> > +From: Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com>
> >> > >> > +Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:22:50 +0900
> >> > >> > +Subject: [PATCH] tools: env: fix build error
> >> > >> > +
> >> > >> > +Since CONFIG_SYS_ARCH, CONFIG_SYS_CPU, ... were moved to Kconfig,
> >> > >> > +tools/env/fw_printenv fails to build if
> >> > >> > CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_CONFIG
> >> > >> > +is defined.
> >> > >> > +(I do not think this is the right way to fix the problem, but
> >> > >> > +for now I do not have enough time to take a close look.)
> >> > >> > +
> >> > >> > +Upstream-Status: Submitted
> >> > >> > [http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/417192/]
> >> > >> > +
> >> > >> > +Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com>
> >> > >> > +Reported-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Is it necessary? In meta-fsl-arm we don't have this patch and get the
> >> > >> tools built.
> >> > >
> >> > > Really? The patch above is rather self-explanatory. The issue was
> >> > > confirmed by
> >> > > U-boot maintainers and the workaround provided by one of the core
> >> > > developers.
> >> > > I'm not familiar with meta-fsl-arm, but I guess you can grep your
> >> > > platform's
> >> > > defconfig to see if CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_CONFIG and others are
> >> > > defined and
> >> > > whether your platforms are affected or not. It does affect our
> >> > > platforms
> >> > > (among many others), including beaglebone.
> >> >
> >> > I think this is for the cross tool only.
> >>
> >> Versus what?
> >
> > Please clarify what exactly you meant with the statement above? Thanks.
>
> The fw-utils require the machine configuration, right?
Right.
> So it depends on the machine to be setup before running the build.
Correct.
> This is the reason it ends being a cross and not a native tool.
Well, partially correct. There are 2 versions of fw-utils recipe - target and
cross. There is no native version of fw-utils and logically it doesn't even
make sense.
Now, for both of the target and cross recipes we need the machine config:
do_compile () {
oe_runmake ${UBOOT_MACHINE}
oe_runmake env
}
So, your statement that the patch above is only needed for the cross is
incorrect or misleading.
> I think your patch does address part of the issue. We now need to
> figure what has been lost when moving to the kbuild system.
The patch above is not mine, but comes from U-boot core developer who was
instrumental in kbuild migration - Masahiro Yamada. There's currently no
proper fix for the issue and the suggested workaround is a hack, but it is
sufficient and safe enough to get the tools built, which is what we need. And
since it may not be safe for the rest of U-boot, I only apply it to fw-utils
recipes.
> I can try to help to debug it if you want...
You are more than welcome to lend a hand to U-boot developers in debugging and
finding a proper fix for the problem... ;)
--
Denys
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
