Re: [meta-xilinx] [PATCH 9/9] zynqmp-pmu: Remove class that uses a multilib hack to build standalone components

[Manjukumar Harthikote Matha]

Hi Martin/Jean,


> -Original Message-
> From: meta-xilinx-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-xilinx-
> boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Martin Siegumfeldt
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:58 AM
> To: Jean-Francois Dagenais 
> Cc: Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego ; meta-
> xil...@yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] [PATCH 9/9] zynqmp-pmu: Remove class that uses a
> multilib hack to build standalone components
> 
> Hi Jean-Francois,
> 
> Appreciate your input, however, since we don't use meta-xilinx-tools, the
> workaround of a dual dependency (from both image- and u-boot) towards PMUFW
> appears more feasible for us.
> 

This is something that should be fixed in OE-core, we are working on it

Thanks,
Manju

> Thanks,
> Martin
> 
> From: Jean-Francois Dagenais 
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 2:31:30 PM
> To: Martin Siegumfeldt
> Cc: Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego; meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] [PATCH 9/9] zynqmp-pmu: Remove class that uses a
> multilib hack to build standalone components
> 
> On Dec 12, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Martin Siegumfeldt
> mailto:m...@gomspace.com>> wrote:
> 
> It looks to me as Manju's proposal of adding it as an image dependency may 
> work
> when building the image, but appears to be subject to a race condition between
> pmu-firmware and virtual/bootloader.
> 
>  I instigated the idea to transform the fsbl build from a class to a proper 
> recipe and
> tying it the the wic stage using. I then had to resolve this same race and if 
> I
> remember correctly, the fix looked like this:
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org/msg02458.html
> 
> Not sure if it applies to your specific situation here. I have not invested 
> much time in
> the multi-config stuff. I resorted to meta-xilinx-tools a while back, managed 
> to
> "make it work" in our CI docker environment and have not looked back since.
> --
> ___
> meta-xilinx mailing list
> meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-xilinx
-- 
___
meta-xilinx mailing list
meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-xilinx

Re: [meta-xilinx] [PATCH 9/9] zynqmp-pmu: Remove class that uses a multilib hack to build standalone components

[Martin Siegumfeldt]

Hi Jean-Francois,

Appreciate your input, however, since we don't use meta-xilinx-tools, the 
workaround of a dual dependency (from both image- and u-boot) towards PMUFW 
appears more feasible for us.

Thanks,
Martin

From: Jean-Francois Dagenais 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 2:31:30 PM
To: Martin Siegumfeldt
Cc: Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego; meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] [PATCH 9/9] zynqmp-pmu: Remove class that uses a 
multilib hack to build standalone components

On Dec 12, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Martin Siegumfeldt 
mailto:m...@gomspace.com>> wrote:

It looks to me as Manju's proposal of adding it as an image dependency may work 
when building the image, but appears to be subject to a race condition between 
pmu-firmware and virtual/bootloader.

 I instigated the idea to transform the fsbl build from a class to a proper 
recipe and tying it the the wic stage using. I then had to resolve this same 
race and if I remember correctly, the fix looked like this:

https://www.mail-archive.com/meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org/msg02458.html

Not sure if it applies to your specific situation here. I have not invested 
much time in the multi-config stuff. I resorted to meta-xilinx-tools a while 
back, managed to "make it work" in our CI docker environment and have not 
looked back since.
-- 
___
meta-xilinx mailing list
meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-xilinx