On 15 July 2017 at 05:42, Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I noticed a missing config for zynq related to tiny kernel type after doing some more testing with the 4.12 updates. Due to how tiny.scc includes standard.scc (which includes arm.scc), however it ignores the .cfg files, which meant CONFIG_ARM_THUMB was not enabled for tiny kernels. I've sent a patch to add this for the 4.9,4.10,master branches. Otherwise all looks good, and I have sent a patch for the 4.12 changes as well. Thanks, Nathan -- _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
