On 2017-07-13 1:55 PM, Nathan Rossi wrote:
On 13 July 2017 at 05:25, Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2017-07-04 11:29 AM, Nathan Rossi wrote:
Most of this configuration has existed in the meta-xilinx layer for
quite some time for use with linux-yocto and Xilinx's vendor tree
kernel, linux-xlnx.
The goal is to enable the use of the MicroBlaze architecture in OE-Core
including the addition of QEMU machines (qemumicroblazeel,
qemumicroblazeeb), this relies on having configuration for the BSPs in
linux-yocto. This series adds the BSP configs for these machines
including both standard and tiny kernel types, as well as fragments for
configuring Xilinx Soft IP drivers.
Also included are Zynq SoC configuration fragments and a generalised
machine config (targeting the SoC for both standard and tiny kernel
types).
Support for MicroBlaze and Zynq has been available in upstream and
linux-yocto for a number of releases. This series does not require any
patching of the kernel source to enable any functionality of the target
BSPs and is purely kernel configuration.
Additionally included in this series is a fragment for debug purposes
that enables the kernels DEBUG_DYNAMIC feature.
These are really clean, and self documenting. I wouldn't have a problem
carrying these along with the main kernel-cache branches.
I don't have the h/w .. so obviously you'd control all the updates (and
any necessary fixes) that weren't clear to me (i.e. options that have
disappeared, or dependency issues, I can handle).
With the qemumicroblaze* targets in the future once all changes have
been applied to oe-core you should be able to test them with just qemu
if needed.
Right. I do recall you mentioning that. That will indeed be
helpful if I run into something and I want to try a closed loop
fix for it.
But I am good to keep a look out on changes to the linux-yocto kernel
and test/validate for these configs.
I had one question about the BE machine, but that is mostly for my
information only.
I'll queue these up for my 4.10 and master branch (which is now 4.12+
for linux-yocto-dev).
I had not yet tested these with 4.10 (which is reason why RFC), though
just tested against v4.10/-dev and all looks good.
ok, cool.
So if I stage them for 4.9, 4.10 and master (aka 4.12+), that can
form a baseline.
They'll be pushed shortly, and you can follow up with a tweak for
master for 4.12.
Bruce
However there are some minor changes that are needed for 4.12 as these
cfgs were targeting 4.11 and earlier. I will send a follow up patch
once sorted to handle the 4.12 differences.
Thanks,
Nathan
--
_______________________________________________
linux-yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
