Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
2013/10/27 Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 14:44 +0300, matti kaasinen wrote:
2013/10/23 Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot.
I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of
${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems
to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some
modefications.
What I mean above is that beaglebone folks have made those patches for
some
reason that is not quite clear tome now considering how ${S}/defconfig
is
produced in linux.inc.
${S}/defconfig is neither used nor produced by OE.
I was wrong in that there are two patches that create ${S}/defconfig.
Instead there are three of them:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
0044-am33xx-Add-default-config.patch
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch
Quoted from oe_manual The patch will be applied from the unpacked source
directory, ${S}.
Above patches create and modify defconfig file. 0002-add created it and
next two tweak it slightly. I double checked this by first deleting:
${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/defconfig and then running:
bitbake -f -c unpack linux-mainline
At this point there is ${WORKDIR}/defconfig that my layer provides.
Then I run:
bitbake -f -c patch linux-mainline
Now there is also ${S}/defconfig.
Then I executed patches with those three patch files in quite a different
place - and that produced there defconfig file that was identical with
${S}/defconfig. BTW Koen, please check who has signed off:
https://github.com/beagleboard/meta-beagleboard/blob/master/common-bsp/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-mainline-3.8/not-capebus/0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
He might be someone you know :-)
So, I would say OE produces ${S}/defconfig.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is only
one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular
Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was
written
over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then
munged
over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
This is outdated information - wild quess - before I noticed how that
${S}/defconfig was really generated by those patches I explained above.
As I said above, ${S}/defconfig is not used in the build.
Good to know
Thanks
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
There is another question, I think I mentioned it earlier also in this
chain. I have also asked it in other time as own subject. No-one seems to
have opinion about that.
Koen, you might know, if it is a feature misbehaviour or problem in my
set-up.
For instance when I ran those tests I did first fetch. Then I ran
unpack. Unpacking ran again fetch and then unpack. Then I ran patch.
Again, at least unpack was run again and then patch. Similar behaviour
seems to happen with configure so that patch will be run again even
though it had been ran manually before. This feature makes paching quite
awkward as if I edit some file that has been unpacked and applied with
other patches, that will be written over when running configure or
compile to check how edits worked.
I always get two warnings when I run bitbake:
WARNING: No recipes available for:
/home/sw/cpr3/oe/sources/meta-handheld/recipes-core/udev/udev_164.bbappend
/home/sw/cpr3/oe/sources/meta-intel/meta-fri2/recipes-core/tiny-init/tiny-init.bbappend
But I suppose they are nothing to do with this issue.
So, Is this something that should happen or should I try to find set-up
problem of some kind?
Thanks,
Matti
2013/10/28 matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com
2013/10/27 Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 14:44 +0300, matti kaasinen wrote:
2013/10/23 Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot.
I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of
${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems
to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some
modefications.
What I mean above is that beaglebone folks have made those patches for
some
reason that is not quite clear tome now considering how ${S}/defconfig
is
produced in linux.inc.
${S}/defconfig is neither used nor produced by OE.
I was wrong in that there are two patches that create ${S}/defconfig.
Instead there are three of them:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
0044-am33xx-Add-default-config.patch
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch
Quoted from oe_manual The patch will be applied from the unpacked source
directory, ${S}.
Above patches create and modify defconfig file. 0002-add created it and
next two tweak it slightly. I double checked this by first deleting:
${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/defconfig and then running:
bitbake -f -c unpack linux-mainline
At this point there is ${WORKDIR}/defconfig that my layer provides.
Then I run:
bitbake -f -c patch linux-mainline
Now there is also ${S}/defconfig.
Then I executed patches with those three patch files in quite a different
place - and that produced there defconfig file that was identical with
${S}/defconfig. BTW Koen, please check who has signed off:
https://github.com/beagleboard/meta-beagleboard/blob/master/common-bsp/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-mainline-3.8/not-capebus/0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
He might be someone you know :-)
So, I would say OE produces ${S}/defconfig.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is
only one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular
Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was
written
over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then
munged
over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
This is outdated information - wild quess - before I noticed how that
${S}/defconfig was really generated by those patches I explained above.
As I said above, ${S}/defconfig is not used in the build.
Good to know
Thanks
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
28 okt 2013 kl. 09:06 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
2013/10/27 Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 14:44 +0300, matti kaasinen wrote:
2013/10/23 Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot.
I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of
${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems
to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some
modefications.
What I mean above is that beaglebone folks have made those patches for
some
reason that is not quite clear tome now considering how ${S}/defconfig
is
produced in linux.inc.
${S}/defconfig is neither used nor produced by OE.
I was wrong in that there are two patches that create ${S}/defconfig.
Instead there are three of them:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
0044-am33xx-Add-default-config.patch
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch
Quoted from oe_manual The patch will be applied from the unpacked source
directory, ${S}.
Above patches create and modify defconfig file. 0002-add created it and
next two tweak it slightly. I double checked this by first deleting:
${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/defconfig and then running:
bitbake -f -c unpack linux-mainline
At this point there is ${WORKDIR}/defconfig that my layer provides.
Then I run:
bitbake -f -c patch linux-mainline
Now there is also ${S}/defconfig.
Then I executed patches with those three patch files in quite a different
place - and that produced there defconfig file that was identical with
${S}/defconfig. BTW Koen, please check who has signed off:
https://github.com/beagleboard/meta-beagleboard/blob/master/common-bsp/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-mainline-3.8/not-capebus/0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
He might be someone you know :-)
So, I would say OE produces ${S}/defconfig.
But in the end, it is ignored...
It is probably a leftover...
/ulf
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is only
one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular
Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was
written
over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then
munged
over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
This is outdated information - wild quess - before I noticed how that
${S}/defconfig was really generated by those patches I explained above.
As I said above, ${S}/defconfig is not used in the build.
Good to know
Thanks
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
I have noticed this as well and it is highly irritating,
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
28 okt 2013 kl. 09:23 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
There is another question, I think I mentioned it earlier also in this
chain. I have also asked it in other time as own subject. No-one seems to
have opinion about that.
Koen, you might know, if it is a feature misbehaviour or problem in my
set-up.
For instance when I ran those tests I did first fetch. Then I ran
unpack. Unpacking ran again fetch and then unpack. Then I ran patch.
Again, at least unpack was run again and then patch. Similar behaviour
seems to happen with configure so that patch will be run again even
though it had been ran manually before. This feature makes paching quite
awkward as if I edit some file that has been unpacked and applied with
other patches, that will be written over when running configure or
compile to check how edits worked.
I always get two warnings when I run bitbake:
WARNING: No recipes available for:
/home/sw/cpr3/oe/sources/meta-handheld/recipes-core/udev/udev_164.bbappend
/home/sw/cpr3/oe/sources/meta-intel/meta-fri2/recipes-core/tiny-init/tiny-init.bbappend
But I suppose they are nothing to do with this issue.
So, Is this something that should happen or should I try to find set-up
problem of some kind?
Thanks,
Matti
2013/10/28 matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com
2013/10/27 Koen Kooi k...@dominion.thruhere.net
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 14:44 +0300, matti kaasinen wrote:
2013/10/23 Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot.
I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of
${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems
to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some
modefications.
What I mean above is that beaglebone folks have made those patches for
some
reason that is not quite clear tome now considering how ${S}/defconfig
is
produced in linux.inc.
${S}/defconfig is neither used nor produced by OE.
I was wrong in that there are two patches that create ${S}/defconfig.
Instead there are three of them:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
0044-am33xx-Add-default-config.patch
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch
Quoted from oe_manual The patch will be applied from the unpacked source
directory, ${S}.
Above patches create and modify defconfig file. 0002-add created it and
next two tweak it slightly. I double checked this by first deleting:
${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/defconfig and then running:
bitbake -f -c unpack linux-mainline
At this point there is ${WORKDIR}/defconfig that my layer provides.
Then I run:
bitbake -f -c patch linux-mainline
Now there is also ${S}/defconfig.
Then I executed patches with those three patch files in quite a different
place - and that produced there defconfig file that was identical with
${S}/defconfig. BTW Koen, please check who has signed off:
https://github.com/beagleboard/meta-beagleboard/blob/master/common-bsp/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-mainline-3.8/not-capebus/0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch
He might be someone you know :-)
So, I would say OE produces ${S}/defconfig.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is
only one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular
Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was
written
over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then
munged
over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
This is outdated information - wild quess - before I noticed how that
${S}/defconfig was really generated by those patches I explained above.
As I said above, ${S}/defconfig is not used in the build.
Good to know
Thanks
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 14:44 +0300, matti kaasinen wrote:
2013/10/23 Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot. I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of ${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some modefications.
What I mean above is that beaglebone folks have made those patches for some
reason that is not quite clear tome now considering how ${S}/defconfig is
produced in linux.inc.
${S}/defconfig is neither used nor produced by OE.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is only one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was written
over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then munged
over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
This is outdated information - wild quess - before I noticed how that
${S}/defconfig was really generated by those patches I explained above.
As I said above, ${S}/defconfig is not used in the build.
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot. I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of ${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some modefications.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is only one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was written over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
Downside is that my beaglebone version of defconfig seems to get used
instead of mine even though my layer should have higher priority. I hope
this is the last thing I should cleared.
Thanks,
Matti
2013/10/22 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com
On 2013-10-22 17:20, matti kaasinen wrote:
Thanks Ulf,
It seems to work in that way. However, I'm a bit surprised that it works
so
as as I mentioned above all the procedures -
patching defconfig in the kernel build directory, providing defconfig in
metadata and providing configuration fragments as described in the Yocto
Kernel development manual - give the same outcome in the defconfig at the
kernel build directory.
What is happening is dependent on the kernel recipe.
Typically, you find that linux.inc does the job,
and in do_configure, which is run when you do:
bitbake -c configure virtual/kernel
${WORKDIR}/defconfig is altered to ensure it makes sense.
A lot of options are simply deleted.
${S}/.config is created as an empty file and then the deleted options are
added with a proper value.
At the end, defconfig is appended to the ${S}/.config
so when you run
bitbake -c configure virtual/kernel
both ${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/.config are changed.
/Ulf
What command do you use when you are using .config directly? My experience
is that when I for instance run:
bitbake -f -c configure virtual/kernel
after
bitbake -f -c patch virtual/kernel
bitbake executes again do_patch, that at least rides over defconfig if I
edited that.
In fact it seems that bitbake -c config runs always do_patch even if
previous command was patch and no modifications were in between.
BR,
Matti
2013/10/22 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com
The defconfig file is present in the meta-layers and copied to the
kernel build directory.
It is used to create the .config file in the kernel source directory.
If you modify the .config file, you will see changes in the kernel
file.
if you modify the defconfig file in the build directory, nothing happens.
I typically change the .config and copy the result to the defconfig
in
the
meta-layer. Then I rebuild from scratch.
bitbake -c cleansstate virtual/kernel
bitbake virtual/kernel
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
u...@emagii.com
+46 (722) 427 437
22 okt 2013 kl. 14:04 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
Hi!
What configuration kernel build really uses - .config or defconfig?
It seems, that menuconfig (bitbake -c menuconfig ) use always .config
file.
I have problem that changes in defconfig are not seen in kernel
features.
Instead they seem the same that are in .config file
I have tried configuration fragments, patches and providing defconfig
directly.
They all seem to give proper defconfig. However, menuconfig never
provide
the changed configurations. Also, for instance when I try to configure
HW
EEC operation for NAND flash using CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH.
omap2.c reports that CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH is not enabled.
I've been workin on beaglebone variant - layer over beaglebone.
Build Configuration:
BB_VERSION= 1.17.0
TARGET_ARCH = arm
TARGET_OS = linux-gnueabi
MACHINE = beaglebone
DISTRO= angstrom
DISTRO_VERSION= v2012.12
TUNE_FEATURES = armv7a vfp neon cortexa8
TARGET_FPU= vfp-neon
oe_sitecno
oe_emergence = unknown:unknown
meta-angstrom =
angstrom-v2012.12-yocto1.3:**b7f8207b94d9a0ece73ad212a193cb**
2c95bd17ee
These setting give kernel 3.8.11.
Is there something I have missed?
Thanks in advance,
Matti
__**_
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@**linuxtogo.orgAngstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**
angstrom-distro-develhttp://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
__**_
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@**linuxtogo.orgAngstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:07 AM, matti kaasinen
matti.kaasi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot. I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of ${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some modefications.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is only one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was written over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then munged over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
usually you would keep the complete defconfig in your layer and use
it. You would start
with the given reference defconfig and tweak it to your interest and then do
make savedefconfig
which should generate a defconfig like arch/arm/configs which then you
can save as a defconfig
file in your layer and use it to replace the defconfig file that
meta-beagleboard is providing
Downside is that my beaglebone version of defconfig seems to get used
instead of mine even though my layer should have higher priority. I hope
this is the last thing I should cleared.
for conf and include files it will use the BBPATH and not priority
which means your layer should appear before meta-beagleboard in BBPATH
order.
Thanks,
Matti
2013/10/22 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com
On 2013-10-22 17:20, matti kaasinen wrote:
Thanks Ulf,
It seems to work in that way. However, I'm a bit surprised that it works
so
as as I mentioned above all the procedures -
patching defconfig in the kernel build directory, providing defconfig in
metadata and providing configuration fragments as described in the Yocto
Kernel development manual - give the same outcome in the defconfig at the
kernel build directory.
What is happening is dependent on the kernel recipe.
Typically, you find that linux.inc does the job,
and in do_configure, which is run when you do:
bitbake -c configure virtual/kernel
${WORKDIR}/defconfig is altered to ensure it makes sense.
A lot of options are simply deleted.
${S}/.config is created as an empty file and then the deleted options are
added with a proper value.
At the end, defconfig is appended to the ${S}/.config
so when you run
bitbake -c configure virtual/kernel
both ${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/.config are changed.
/Ulf
What command do you use when you are using .config directly? My experience
is that when I for instance run:
bitbake -f -c configure virtual/kernel
after
bitbake -f -c patch virtual/kernel
bitbake executes again do_patch, that at least rides over defconfig if I
edited that.
In fact it seems that bitbake -c config runs always do_patch even if
previous command was patch and no modifications were in between.
BR,
Matti
2013/10/22 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com
The defconfig file is present in the meta-layers and copied to the
kernel build directory.
It is used to create the .config file in the kernel source directory.
If you modify the .config file, you will see changes in the kernel
file.
if you modify the defconfig file in the build directory, nothing happens.
I typically change the .config and copy the result to the defconfig
in
the
meta-layer. Then I rebuild from scratch.
bitbake -c cleansstate virtual/kernel
bitbake virtual/kernel
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
u...@emagii.com
+46 (722) 427 437
22 okt 2013 kl. 14:04 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
Hi!
What configuration kernel build really uses - .config or defconfig?
It seems, that menuconfig (bitbake -c menuconfig ) use always .config
file.
I have problem that changes in defconfig are not seen in kernel
features.
Instead they seem the same that are in .config file
I have tried configuration fragments, patches and providing defconfig
directly.
They all seem to give proper defconfig. However, menuconfig never
provide
the changed configurations. Also, for instance when I try to configure
HW
EEC operation for NAND flash using CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH.
omap2.c reports that CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH is not enabled.
I've been workin on beaglebone variant - layer over beaglebone.
Build Configuration:
BB_VERSION= 1.17.0
TARGET_ARCH = arm
TARGET_OS = linux-gnueabi
MACHINE = beaglebone
DISTRO= angstrom
DISTRO_VERSION= v2012.12
TUNE_FEATURES = armv7a vfp neon cortexa8
TARGET_FPU= vfp-neon
oe_sitecno
oe_emergence =
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
2013/10/23 Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
Hi Ulf,
Yes, linux.inc seems doing the job as you told - this clears a lot. I had
been patching wrong file:${S}/defconfig instead of ${WORKDIR}/defconfig.
It seems that I'm not alone with this mistake. ${S}/defconfig seems to be
created by two patches:
0002-add-defconfig-file-to-use-as-.config.patch makes skeleton and
0073-defconfig-Update-bone-default-config.patch makes some modefications.
What I mean above is that beaglebone folks have made those patches for some
reason that is not quite clear tome now considering how ${S}/defconfig is
produced in linux.inc.
${WORKDIR}/defconfig (important one) is most likely coming from
./linux/linux-mainline-3.8/beaglebone/defconfig as there is only one
difference that could have come from configuration process.
It seems that configuration fragments do not work in regular Angstrom - I
suppose they are just Yocto stuff.
yes.
Providing defconfig directly did not work - most likely it was written
over
by the patching the seems creating the ${WORKDIR}/defconfig
what do you mean ? defconfig is provided as any other file and then munged
over
in WORKDIR to make a .config
This is outdated information - wild quess - before I noticed how that
${S}/defconfig was really generated by those patches I explained above.
usually you would keep the complete defconfig in your layer and use
it. You would start
with the given reference defconfig and tweak it to your interest and then
do
make savedefconfig
which should generate a defconfig like arch/arm/configs which then you
can save as a defconfig
file in your layer and use it to replace the defconfig file that
meta-beagleboard is providing
Downside is that my beaglebone version of defconfig seems to get used
instead of mine even though my layer should have higher priority. I hope
this is the last thing I should cleared.
for conf and include files it will use the BBPATH and not priority
which means your layer should appear before meta-beagleboard in BBPATH
order.
Thanks, I'll check this
Matti
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
2013/10/23 matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com
for conf and include files it will use the BBPATH and not priority
which means your layer should appear before meta-beagleboard in BBPATH
order.
It did not help chnging BBPATH in layer.conf
It used to be
BBPATH .= :${LAYERDIR}
and I changed it to:
BBPATH =. ${LAYERDIR}:
It still fetches beaglebone's defconfig.
Should I change my bbappend file instad not using FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend
but using FILESPATH_prepend instead?
Do FILESPATH have precedence over FILESEXTRAPATHS?
Cheers,
Matti
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
You are looking in the wrong file.
In Angstrom, you need to change BBPATH in setup-scripts/conf/bblayers.conf
Not in the layer.conf in your own layer.
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
u...@emagii.com
23 okt 2013 kl. 14:24 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
2013/10/23 matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com
for conf and include files it will use the BBPATH and not priority
which means your layer should appear before meta-beagleboard in BBPATH
order.
It did not help chnging BBPATH in layer.conf
It used to be
BBPATH .= :${LAYERDIR}
and I changed it to:
BBPATH =. ${LAYERDIR}:
It still fetches beaglebone's defconfig.
Should I change my bbappend file instad not using FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend
but using FILESPATH_prepend instead?
Do FILESPATH have precedence over FILESEXTRAPATHS?
Cheers,
Matti
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
Ulf,
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I've understood that layers (read layer.conf files) are scanned through
using locations and order found in BBLAYERS variable set in bblayers.conf
file. BBPATH is initialized in bblayers.conf as ${TOPDIR}. Thereafter (my
wild guess) BBPATH is appended (or prepended) with values given in the the
layer.conf files. I switched to prepending and it did not help this issue.
I have set my layer as the first instance in BBLAYERS variable whereas
meta-beagleboard/common-bsp is somewhere in the middle. My layer is using
prepending when assigning in BBPATH (should be the first instance also in
BBPATH) whereas meta-beagleboard/common-bsp uses appending. Therefore, my
layer should be handled before meta-beagleboard/common-bsp, should it not?
I may have understood this all wrong, though.
Regards,
Matti
2013/10/23 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com
You are looking in the wrong file.
In Angstrom, you need to change BBPATH in setup-scripts/conf/bblayers.conf
Not in the layer.conf in your own layer.
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
u...@emagii.com
23 okt 2013 kl. 14:24 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
2013/10/23 matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com
for conf and include files it will use the BBPATH and not priority
which means your layer should appear before meta-beagleboard in BBPATH
order.
It did not help chnging BBPATH in layer.conf
It used to be
BBPATH .= :${LAYERDIR}
and I changed it to:
BBPATH =. ${LAYERDIR}:
It still fetches beaglebone's defconfig.
Should I change my bbappend file instad not using FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend
but using FILESPATH_prepend instead?
Do FILESPATH have precedence over FILESEXTRAPATHS?
Cheers,
Matti
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
The defconfig file is present in the meta-layers and copied to the kernel build directory. It is used to create the .config file in the kernel source directory. If you modify the .config file, you will see changes in the kernel file. if you modify the defconfig file in the build directory, nothing happens. I typically change the .config and copy the result to the defconfig in the meta-layer. Then I rebuild from scratch. bitbake -c cleansstate virtual/kernel bitbake virtual/kernel Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson u...@emagii.com +46 (722) 427 437 22 okt 2013 kl. 14:04 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com: Hi! What configuration kernel build really uses - .config or defconfig? It seems, that menuconfig (bitbake -c menuconfig ) use always .config file. I have problem that changes in defconfig are not seen in kernel features. Instead they seem the same that are in .config file I have tried configuration fragments, patches and providing defconfig directly. They all seem to give proper defconfig. However, menuconfig never provide the changed configurations. Also, for instance when I try to configure HW EEC operation for NAND flash using CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH. omap2.c reports that CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH is not enabled. I've been workin on beaglebone variant - layer over beaglebone. Build Configuration: BB_VERSION= 1.17.0 TARGET_ARCH = arm TARGET_OS = linux-gnueabi MACHINE = beaglebone DISTRO= angstrom DISTRO_VERSION= v2012.12 TUNE_FEATURES = armv7a vfp neon cortexa8 TARGET_FPU= vfp-neon oe_sitecno oe_emergence = unknown:unknown meta-angstrom = angstrom-v2012.12-yocto1.3:b7f8207b94d9a0ece73ad212a193cb2c95bd17ee These setting give kernel 3.8.11. Is there something I have missed? Thanks in advance, Matti ___ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel ___ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
Thanks Ulf, It seems to work in that way. However, I'm a bit surprised that it works so as as I mentioned above all the procedures - patching defconfig in the kernel build directory, providing defconfig in metadata and providing configuration fragments as described in the Yocto Kernel development manual - give the same outcome in the defconfig at the kernel build directory. What command do you use when you are using .config directly? My experience is that when I for instance run: bitbake -f -c configure virtual/kernel after bitbake -f -c patch virtual/kernel bitbake executes again do_patch, that at least rides over defconfig if I edited that. In fact it seems that bitbake -c config runs always do_patch even if previous command was patch and no modifications were in between. BR, Matti 2013/10/22 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com The defconfig file is present in the meta-layers and copied to the kernel build directory. It is used to create the .config file in the kernel source directory. If you modify the .config file, you will see changes in the kernel file. if you modify the defconfig file in the build directory, nothing happens. I typically change the .config and copy the result to the defconfig in the meta-layer. Then I rebuild from scratch. bitbake -c cleansstate virtual/kernel bitbake virtual/kernel Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson u...@emagii.com +46 (722) 427 437 22 okt 2013 kl. 14:04 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com: Hi! What configuration kernel build really uses - .config or defconfig? It seems, that menuconfig (bitbake -c menuconfig ) use always .config file. I have problem that changes in defconfig are not seen in kernel features. Instead they seem the same that are in .config file I have tried configuration fragments, patches and providing defconfig directly. They all seem to give proper defconfig. However, menuconfig never provide the changed configurations. Also, for instance when I try to configure HW EEC operation for NAND flash using CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH. omap2.c reports that CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH is not enabled. I've been workin on beaglebone variant - layer over beaglebone. Build Configuration: BB_VERSION= 1.17.0 TARGET_ARCH = arm TARGET_OS = linux-gnueabi MACHINE = beaglebone DISTRO= angstrom DISTRO_VERSION= v2012.12 TUNE_FEATURES = armv7a vfp neon cortexa8 TARGET_FPU= vfp-neon oe_sitecno oe_emergence = unknown:unknown meta-angstrom = angstrom-v2012.12-yocto1.3:b7f8207b94d9a0ece73ad212a193cb2c95bd17ee These setting give kernel 3.8.11. Is there something I have missed? Thanks in advance, Matti ___ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel ___ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel ___ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
Re: [Angstrom-devel] what file kernel configuration really uses?
On 2013-10-22 17:20, matti kaasinen wrote:
Thanks Ulf,
It seems to work in that way. However, I'm a bit surprised that it works so
as as I mentioned above all the procedures -
patching defconfig in the kernel build directory, providing defconfig in
metadata and providing configuration fragments as described in the Yocto
Kernel development manual - give the same outcome in the defconfig at the
kernel build directory.
What is happening is dependent on the kernel recipe.
Typically, you find that linux.inc does the job,
and in do_configure, which is run when you do:
bitbake -c configure virtual/kernel
${WORKDIR}/defconfig is altered to ensure it makes sense.
A lot of options are simply deleted.
${S}/.config is created as an empty file and then the deleted options
are added with a proper value.
At the end, defconfig is appended to the ${S}/.config
so when you run
bitbake -c configure virtual/kernel
both ${WORKDIR}/defconfig and ${S}/.config are changed.
/Ulf
What command do you use when you are using .config directly? My experience
is that when I for instance run:
bitbake -f -c configure virtual/kernel
after
bitbake -f -c patch virtual/kernel
bitbake executes again do_patch, that at least rides over defconfig if I
edited that.
In fact it seems that bitbake -c config runs always do_patch even if
previous command was patch and no modifications were in between.
BR,
Matti
2013/10/22 Ulf Samuelsson angstrom-...@emagii.com
The defconfig file is present in the meta-layers and copied to the
kernel build directory.
It is used to create the .config file in the kernel source directory.
If you modify the .config file, you will see changes in the kernel file.
if you modify the defconfig file in the build directory, nothing happens.
I typically change the .config and copy the result to the defconfig in
the
meta-layer. Then I rebuild from scratch.
bitbake -c cleansstate virtual/kernel
bitbake virtual/kernel
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
u...@emagii.com
+46 (722) 427 437
22 okt 2013 kl. 14:04 skrev matti kaasinen matti.kaasi...@gmail.com:
Hi!
What configuration kernel build really uses - .config or defconfig?
It seems, that menuconfig (bitbake -c menuconfig ) use always .config
file.
I have problem that changes in defconfig are not seen in kernel features.
Instead they seem the same that are in .config file
I have tried configuration fragments, patches and providing defconfig
directly.
They all seem to give proper defconfig. However, menuconfig never provide
the changed configurations. Also, for instance when I try to configure HW
EEC operation for NAND flash using CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH.
omap2.c reports that CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_BCH is not enabled.
I've been workin on beaglebone variant - layer over beaglebone.
Build Configuration:
BB_VERSION= 1.17.0
TARGET_ARCH = arm
TARGET_OS = linux-gnueabi
MACHINE = beaglebone
DISTRO= angstrom
DISTRO_VERSION= v2012.12
TUNE_FEATURES = armv7a vfp neon cortexa8
TARGET_FPU= vfp-neon
oe_sitecno
oe_emergence = unknown:unknown
meta-angstrom =
angstrom-v2012.12-yocto1.3:b7f8207b94d9a0ece73ad212a193cb2c95bd17ee
These setting give kernel 3.8.11.
Is there something I have missed?
Thanks in advance,
Matti
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
___
Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list
Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
