On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:21 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> From: Christopher Larson <[email protected]> >>> >>> There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets >>> TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result, >>> more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their >>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As >>> a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather >>> than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS' >>> failure in the build. >>> >>> To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and >>> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++-- >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >>> b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >>> index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644 >>> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >>> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc >>> @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', >>> True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e >>> PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", >>> "-nf", d)}" >>> >>> PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}" >>> -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}" >>> >>> # Basic tune definitions >>> -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" >>> +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" >>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft" >>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}" >>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib" >>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf" >>> TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard" >>> +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}" >>> BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib" >>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc >> >> Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set >> TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the >> PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have >> an opinion here? > > I thought this was already fixed in my patch. Seems like it was not applied? > > -M > > commit 216b54e23a995aea79499b88a99f606bb65579af > Author: Matthew McClintock <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Feb 27 10:58:45 2012 -0600 > > arch-powerpc.inc: use default value of TUNE_PKGARCH > > We can use the default value for TUNE_PKGARCH, and now we just > append "-nf" if TARGET_FPU is fpu-soft > > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <[email protected]>
Ah, indeed, apparently it was not. That said, it looks like your version will end up with TUNE_PKGARCH like ppce500mc-nf, is that correct? You know this stuff better than I do. -- Christopher Larson _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
