> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com> wrote: > > The single purpose of "map_kernel_arch" is to set > > export ARCH = "arch_xxx" > > Presently, we must set ARCH even when building baremetal toolchains only, > without any need to build kernel. However, in this case we may > encounter a bogus error such as "cannot map arch_xxx to a linux kernel > architecture". > The simplest way to avoid this is to place arch_xxx into the table > "valid_archs". (That was the main reason for the patch). > > A better but more complex way would be to modify the code so > map_kernel_arch is not called at all when NOT building kernel or kernel > modules. This would also allow building baremetal cross-toolchains for arches > that don't have Linux kernels at all. > > Another way to consider is perhaps just getting rid of the table > "valid_archs" entirely. > > "map_kernel_arch" maps arch_aaa -> arch_xxx for some cases. > If there is no explicit mapping, then it could simply map > > arch_aaa->arch_aaa > > resulting in export ARCH="arch_aaa" > There would be no error generated. If ARCH is not a valid > arch for a Linux kernel, we would encounter a build error at some point. > But that, I believe is the same case now if we try to build a kernel > with a valid kernel ARCH but not supported actively in OE or extended OE > ecosystem.
I think you should add a check for testing TARGET_OS and if its not linux then ignore the valid kernel arches check. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:40 PM >> To: Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com> >> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; jurobystri...@hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into >> valid_archs table >> >> >>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add >>> them into valid_archs table. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com> >>> --- >>> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel- >> arch.bbclass >>> index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644 >>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass >>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass >>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \ >>> parisc s390 v850 \ >>> avr32 blackfin \ >>> microblaze \ >>> - nios2" >>> + nios2 arc xtensa” >> >> there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we >> should >> remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE ecosystem. >> >>> >>> def map_kernel_arch(a, d): >>> import re >>> -- >>> 2.7.4 >>> >>> -- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembeddedemail@example.com >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembeddedfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core