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