On 12-11-14 11:33 AM, Darren Hart wrote:


On 11/14/2012 07:03 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
Updating the SRCREV to import the following changes.

  [updateme: find the board description with the highest score]

    This removes the requirement that a custom linux-yocto .scc file have
    define KTYPE <foo>, where <foo> is typically "standard". The tools can
    now match on a .scc file that only matches the board, but will still
    chose one that matches the board and kernel type, if available.

Should the documentation then state that KTYPE is only necessary to
define if it is not "standard" ? Does this also apply to

Nope. That isn't the intention. If you are using kernel types at all,
you should define one. Whether it be standard or not.

linux-yocto-custom recipes/kernels where the repository could very well
not define any ktype at all?

Same as the above. If you are create kernel .scc files to work with
linux-yocto custom, you are now free to use kernel types, or not, your
choice.



  [updateme: allow for tabs or spaces in defines]

    define KMACHINE<tab>$MACHINE was missed by the regex.

  [scc/kgit-meta: detect and avoid duplicating patching]

    To allow feature description to be included multiple times, they were
    previously split into -enable and 'patch' descriptions. With this change
    the patches will be detected as already included, and skipped
    automatically. Removing the need to do this split. It also cleans up
    the ability to warn about multiple includes.

  [kconf_check: add "verify" configuration fragment type]

    This adds the ability for a BSP to have a kernel configuration
    fragment that lists options that must be present. If they are not
    present it is a hard error. "required" is a similar fragment, but
    it adds them to the build, and audits them at the end, but does
    not abort the build if they are present. This is a minor distinction,
    but one that is useful when creating flexible, shared kernel config
    structures.


IIRC we discussed this verify thing at ELCE and how it broke some of the
semantics.... trying to remember now, let's see:

kconf hardware foo.cfg
kconf verify hardware bar.cfg
kconf non-hardware foobar.cfg
kconf verify non-hardware barfoo.cfg

Is that how this is to be used? The configuration space just doubled
from a documentation point of view, and that is without even considering
the "required" keyword you described.

I'll continue to work on this for 1.4, but I didn't want to pend the
series on anything that we discussed in Barcelona .. these have been
around for some time and I wanted to push them out before doing any 1.4
tweaks.

But to answer your question. You could have multiple 'verify' fragments,
but I'd only suggest one. It's a final check that critical options are
in the final .config and will throw a hard error. required is an
alias for 'hardware' and still only throws a warning if they are missing.

There few current users of 'verify', so I can still follow up with
syntax tweaks that we discussed (do you have notes on that ?). I recall
simply making 'verify' a modifier of the existing kconf types would be
better than the current new type. I'll keep all the variants around, since
the plumbing is the same and that will again give time for migration.

We could argue that required should also be a hard error, but we can't
do that quite yet, since there are some existing use cases and trees
that will start to error out, and I'd like to migrate them first.


Can you use required with verify? Can you use both of them with both
hardware and non-hardware?

Any combination at all should work.

Cheers,

Bruce




  [kconf_check: improve kernel audit report formatting]
  [kconf_check: perform validity checks on non-hardware options]
  [kconf_check: cleanups and verbose flag]

    The existing output was verbose and not always useful to the reader.
    This change makes the output more compact, audits non-hardware options
    and gives information

      [invalid (54)]: meta/cfg/preempt-rt/common-pc/invalid.cfg
         This BSP sets config options that are not offered anywhere within this 
kernel

Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]>
---
  meta/recipes-kernel/kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb |    2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb 
b/meta/recipes-kernel/kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb
index ce94885..f2cd39f 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = 
"file://git/tools/kgit;beginline=5;endline=9;md5=d8d1d729a70c

  DEPENDS = "git-native guilt-native"

-SRCREV = "a802ee9c8d9334c0f7932dfd40d45599addb7c90"
+SRCREV = "6f68c9473b43c3e39755a72aef8733cbd0bf1a59"
  PR = "r12"
  PV = "0.1+git${SRCPV}"





_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Reply via email to