Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: ... So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a flag is behaving as you would expect it to, or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG isn't defined? Thanks in advance for any advice, I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the value was different from newer releases. In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: ... So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a flag is behaving as you would expect it to, or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG isn't defined? Thanks in advance for any advice, I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the value was different from newer releases. In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. If I have to do that, then I have to do that. However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the meta-fsl-arm layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend the time right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as I will be moving up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than fixing it. Comment the UBOOT_MACHINE setting in the u-boot-imx recipe and move on. The log is clear you're not setting the PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly and you should. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 02/05/2014 14:07, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: ... So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a flag is behaving as you would expect it to, or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG isn't defined? Thanks in advance for any advice, I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the value was different from newer releases. In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. If I have to do that, then I have to do that. However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the meta-fsl-arm layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend the time right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as I will be moving up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than fixing it. Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass such that it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the problem ? Comment the UBOOT_MACHINE setting in the u-boot-imx recipe and move on. The log is clear you're not setting the PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly and you should. You've lost me. Why am I not setting PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly? I have two recipes in the checkout and I have configured prefer the older one, which seems entirely reasonable. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 14:07, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: ... So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a flag is behaving as you would expect it to, or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG isn't defined? Thanks in advance for any advice, I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the value was different from newer releases. In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. If I have to do that, then I have to do that. However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the meta-fsl-arm layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend the time right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as I will be moving up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than fixing it. Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass such that it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the problem ? Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967 Comment the UBOOT_MACHINE setting in the u-boot-imx recipe and move on. The log is clear you're not setting the PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly and you should. You've lost me. Why am I not setting PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly? I have two recipes in the checkout and I have configured prefer the older one, which seems entirely reasonable. Your log say's it looks for u-boot-imx 2013.04 and not for 2009.08. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass such that it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the problem ? Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967 Fixed: http://privatepaste.com/3ffec754d4 -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Friday 02 May 2014 10:23:10 Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 14:07, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: ... So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a flag is behaving as you would expect it to, or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG isn't defined? Thanks in advance for any advice, I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the value was different from newer releases. In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. If I have to do that, then I have to do that. However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the meta-fsl-arm layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend the time right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as I will be moving up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than fixing it. Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass such that it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the problem ? Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967 if len(x) 0, if len(x), and if x are all equivalent tests for empty strings in Python, so this part of the change does nothing but make the code slightly harder to read. This part of the test is not where the problem lies. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 02/05/2014 14:23, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 14:07, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: ... So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a flag is behaving as you would expect it to, or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG isn't defined? Thanks in advance for any advice, I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the value was different from newer releases. In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. If I have to do that, then I have to do that. However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the meta-fsl-arm layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend the time right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as I will be moving up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than fixing it. Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass such that it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the problem ? Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967 Comment the UBOOT_MACHINE setting in the u-boot-imx recipe and move on. The log is clear you're not setting the PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly and you should. You've lost me. Why am I not setting PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly? I have two recipes in the checkout and I have configured prefer the older one, which seems entirely reasonable. Your log say's it looks for u-boot-imx 2013.04 and not for 2009.08. I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here, but if you look at my earlier email, and check the patchbin snippets I provided you will see I am preferring 2009.08 1. PREFERRED_VERSION_u-boot-imx=2009.08 The test in uboot-config.bbclass causes this to fail/be unavailable to the build, which is why the log says I cannot use 2009.08, instead falling back to the newer version. Removing the two lines checking for the definition of the two variables results in the 2009.08 build completing successfully - but I don't want to leave that little bomb in meta-fsl-arm for colleagues to fall over in future. I cannot override what meta-fsl-arm is setting because I can't (or don't know how to) undefine one of those two variables in my bbappend, and although I believe I _can_ set it to an empty string as Paul suggested, I don't believe the the getVar() code in uboot-config.bbclass checks this, although I'm a bit unclear on the semantics of that function call. I appreciate the help here Otavio, and I was hoping there was a simple non-invasive way to solve the problem by undefining the variable in my layer, as it seemed cleaner. I don't want to waste any more of your time on this though so if I can't do that then I'll just take the hacky route as an intermediary step, copy out your 2009.08 recipe into my layer and mod it there. Thanks for the time feedback though, Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 02/05/2014 14:25, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass such that it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the problem ? Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967 Fixed: http://privatepaste.com/3ffec754d4 Otavio, thanks for that. Python is not my métier and I had assumed that the check on 'if ubootmachine' and so forth would check for definition rather than be a check on a zero length string. However given Paul's pointer on Python I've revisited this, if len(x) 0, if len(x), and if x are all equivalent tests for empty strings in Python I had tried setting UBOOT_CONFIG = and UBOOT_MACHINE = as that's what I saw used in the getVar(). This which didn't work for me, and I wrongly assuming this was because of the test. If instead I set the appended machine type, e.g. UBOOT_MACHINE_im6qsabresd = , then that works (!) I guess it's being copied across somewhere. So thanks again for the advice. I think we've cracked it :) Cheers, Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Alex J Lennon
ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote:
On 02/05/2014 14:25, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Otavio Salvador
So thanks again for the advice. I think we've cracked it :)
Could you try the attached patch over Poky?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
From 0b0a3f669f7d8beb626729d85e2cba5d85f3e2c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:20:28 -0300
Subject: [PATCH] uboot-config.bbclass: Fix checking of non-setted values in
UBOOT_CONFIG
Organization: O.S. Systems Software LTDA.
The code were mistakenly checking for UBOOT_CONFIG flags instead of
UBOOT_CONFIG value when verifying for duplicated setting, this made it
hard to be overriden in case it was need in subsequent layers.
Reported-by: Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br
---
meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass b/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
index 8ac1b71..3c48657 100644
--- a/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
@@ -13,24 +13,25 @@
python () {
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
-ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
-# The doc varflag is special, we don't want to see it here
-ubootconfigflags.pop('doc', None)
+ubootconfig = (d.getVar('UBOOT_CONFIG', True) or ).split()
-if not ubootmachine and not ubootconfigflags:
+if not ubootmachine and not ubootconfig:
PN = d.getVar(PN, True)
FILE = os.path.basename(d.getVar(FILE, True))
bb.debug(1, To build %s, see %s for instructions on \
setting up your machine config % (PN, FILE))
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(Either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG must be set in the %s machine configuration. % d.getVar(MACHINE, True))
-if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
+if ubootmachine and ubootconfig:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
+ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
+# The doc varflag is special, we don't want to see it here
+ubootconfigflags.pop('doc', None)
+
if not ubootconfigflags:
return
-ubootconfig = (d.getVar('UBOOT_CONFIG', True) or ).split()
if len(ubootconfig) 1:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage('You can only have a single default for UBOOT_CONFIG.')
elif len(ubootconfig) == 0:
--
2.0.0.rc0
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 02/05/2014 16:24, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 14:25, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Otavio Salvador So thanks again for the advice. I think we've cracked it :) Could you try the attached patch over Poky? I tried the patch, but I'm not sure that it makes a difference I'm afraid - with UBOOT_MACHINE = or UBOOT_CONFIG = in my .bbappend I still get the message about 2009.08 not being available - with UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd = .bbappend it still works Best Regards, Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 16:24, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 14:25, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Otavio Salvador So thanks again for the advice. I think we've cracked it :) Could you try the attached patch over Poky? I tried the patch, but I'm not sure that it makes a difference I'm afraid - with UBOOT_MACHINE = or UBOOT_CONFIG = in my .bbappend I still get the message about 2009.08 not being available - with UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd = .bbappend it still works Yes but this is becase the u-boot-imx_2009.08 has a UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd setting. So it overrides the UBOOT_MACHINE one. I think without this patch even UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd won't work. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 02/05/2014 17:55, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 16:24, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Alex J Lennon ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/2014 14:25, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Otavio Salvador So thanks again for the advice. I think we've cracked it :) Could you try the attached patch over Poky? I tried the patch, but I'm not sure that it makes a difference I'm afraid - with UBOOT_MACHINE = or UBOOT_CONFIG = in my .bbappend I still get the message about 2009.08 not being available - with UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd = .bbappend it still works Yes but this is becase the u-boot-imx_2009.08 has a UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd setting. So it overrides the UBOOT_MACHINE one. I think without this patch even UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd won't work. I do seem to be having some strangeness with what it is actually building now but at least it seems to be picking up the right recipe version so I imagine I can get the right build settings in the .bbappend now. Thanks again Otavio ( Paul) -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
Hi,
I have an issue with the build of an old u-boot (2009.08) which is
failing a check in poky as both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_MACHINE are being
defined for some reason.
poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
..
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I have a .bbappend on the original u-boot recipe and could solve the
problem by undefining UBOOT_MACHINE if I could work out how to do this
in the .bbappend
I've tried setting it to None or an empty string, and I tried an
anonymous python function but those approaches didn't help,
e.g. (in the .bbappend
UBOOT_MACHINE =
or
UBOOT_MACHINE = None
or
python __anonymous () {
bb.data.delVar('UBOOT_MACHINE_imx6qsabresd')
}
I could just copy the original recipe from metal-fsl-arm into my own
layer and change it there I guess but I'd like to understand how to
achieve this with a .bbappend if it is possible as it seems cleaner.
Many thanks,
Alex
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
Hi Alex,
On Thursday 01 May 2014 10:42:51 Alex J Lennon wrote:
I have an issue with the build of an old u-boot (2009.08) which is
failing a check in poky as both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_MACHINE are being
defined for some reason.
poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
..
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I have a .bbappend on the original u-boot recipe and could solve the
problem by undefining UBOOT_MACHINE if I could work out how to do this
in the .bbappend
I've tried setting it to None or an empty string, and I tried an
anonymous python function but those approaches didn't help,
e.g. (in the .bbappend
UBOOT_MACHINE =
This should work - the python code above is checking if the value evaluates to
True, and that shouldn't be the case for an empty string. I suspect something
else is at work here - either the check is running before your value gets set,
or the value is being set using an override somewhere and therefore your value
isn't being used.
(adding Otavio on CC since these are his checks and his layer)
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 01/05/2014 14:54, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Thursday 01 May 2014 10:42:51 Alex J Lennon wrote:
I have an issue with the build of an old u-boot (2009.08) which is
failing a check in poky as both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_MACHINE are being
defined for some reason.
poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
..
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I have a .bbappend on the original u-boot recipe and could solve the
problem by undefining UBOOT_MACHINE if I could work out how to do this
in the .bbappend
I've tried setting it to None or an empty string, and I tried an
anonymous python function but those approaches didn't help,
e.g. (in the .bbappend
UBOOT_MACHINE =
This should work - the python code above is checking if the value evaluates
to
True, and that shouldn't be the case for an empty string. I suspect something
else is at work here - either the check is running before your value gets
set,
or the value is being set using an override somewhere and therefore your
value
isn't being used.
(adding Otavio on CC since these are his checks and his layer)
Thanks for coming back to me on this Paul. OK, I must be
misunderstanding something.
I was outputting the UBOOT_MACHINE to test and it's not a True value at
any point as you
might expect as it's set to the machine type if set, but my build was
still failing to pick up
my preferred recipe version unless I commented out the if/raise, in
which case all worked
as expected.
Caught up with something at the minute but I will go through this again
first thing tomorrow.
Thanks again,
Alex
Cheers,
Paul
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alex J Lennon
ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote:
On 01/05/2014 14:54, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Thursday 01 May 2014 10:42:51 Alex J Lennon wrote:
I have an issue with the build of an old u-boot (2009.08) which is
failing a check in poky as both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_MACHINE are being
defined for some reason.
poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
..
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I have a .bbappend on the original u-boot recipe and could solve the
problem by undefining UBOOT_MACHINE if I could work out how to do this
in the .bbappend
I've tried setting it to None or an empty string, and I tried an
anonymous python function but those approaches didn't help,
e.g. (in the .bbappend
UBOOT_MACHINE =
This should work - the python code above is checking if the value evaluates
to
True, and that shouldn't be the case for an empty string. I suspect something
else is at work here - either the check is running before your value gets
set,
or the value is being set using an override somewhere and therefore your
value
isn't being used.
(adding Otavio on CC since these are his checks and his layer)
Thanks for coming back to me on this Paul. OK, I must be
misunderstanding something.
I was outputting the UBOOT_MACHINE to test and it's not a True value at
any point as you
might expect as it's set to the machine type if set, but my build was
still failing to pick up
my preferred recipe version unless I commented out the if/raise, in
which case all worked
as expected.
Caught up with something at the minute but I will go through this again
first thing tomorrow.
When you debug it let me know and I can try to help in solve it.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 01/05/2014 18:54, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alex J Lennon
ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote:
On 01/05/2014 14:54, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Thursday 01 May 2014 10:42:51 Alex J Lennon wrote:
I have an issue with the build of an old u-boot (2009.08) which is
failing a check in poky as both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_MACHINE are being
defined for some reason.
poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
..
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I have a .bbappend on the original u-boot recipe and could solve the
problem by undefining UBOOT_MACHINE if I could work out how to do this
in the .bbappend
I've tried setting it to None or an empty string, and I tried an
anonymous python function but those approaches didn't help,
e.g. (in the .bbappend
UBOOT_MACHINE =
This should work - the python code above is checking if the value evaluates
to
True, and that shouldn't be the case for an empty string. I suspect
something
else is at work here - either the check is running before your value gets
set,
or the value is being set using an override somewhere and therefore your
value
isn't being used.
(adding Otavio on CC since these are his checks and his layer)
Thanks for coming back to me on this Paul. OK, I must be
misunderstanding something.
I was outputting the UBOOT_MACHINE to test and it's not a True value at
any point as you
might expect as it's set to the machine type if set, but my build was
still failing to pick up
my preferred recipe version unless I commented out the if/raise, in
which case all worked
as expected.
Caught up with something at the minute but I will go through this again
first thing tomorrow.
When you debug it let me know and I can try to help in solve it.
Much appreciated thanks Otavio. Will do.
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?
On 01/05/2014 18:54, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alex J Lennon
ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk wrote:
On 01/05/2014 14:54, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Thursday 01 May 2014 10:42:51 Alex J Lennon wrote:
I have an issue with the build of an old u-boot (2009.08) which is
failing a check in poky as both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_MACHINE are being
defined for some reason.
poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
ubootmachine = d.getVar(UBOOT_MACHINE, True)
ubootconfigflags = d.getVarFlags('UBOOT_CONFIG')
..
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I have a .bbappend on the original u-boot recipe and could solve the
problem by undefining UBOOT_MACHINE if I could work out how to do this
in the .bbappend
I've tried setting it to None or an empty string, and I tried an
anonymous python function but those approaches didn't help,
e.g. (in the .bbappend
UBOOT_MACHINE =
This should work - the python code above is checking if the value evaluates
to
True, and that shouldn't be the case for an empty string. I suspect
something
else is at work here - either the check is running before your value gets
set,
or the value is being set using an override somewhere and therefore your
value
isn't being used.
(adding Otavio on CC since these are his checks and his layer)
Thanks for coming back to me on this Paul. OK, I must be
misunderstanding something.
I was outputting the UBOOT_MACHINE to test and it's not a True value at
any point as you
might expect as it's set to the machine type if set, but my build was
still failing to pick up
my preferred recipe version unless I commented out the if/raise, in
which case all worked
as expected.
Caught up with something at the minute but I will go through this again
first thing tomorrow.
When you debug it let me know and I can try to help in solve it.
Hi Otavio, Paul,
(Thanks for your advice on this; apologies if I'm posting to the wrong
list but I thought it would be worth maintaining the thread in-situ)
Revisiting the issue, a little background might first be useful to
explain what I'm trying to achieve and why I'm doing what I'm doing.
I am currently working with a board variant based on the Freescale
imx6qsabresd.
I have a board port which a colleague did for an Android project, and
they based on u-boot-imx 2009.08 and linux-imx kernel 3.0.35
My roadmap is to forward port the changes into the newer kernel 3.10.17
for which I understand we'll also need the newer
u-boot 2013.04 for devicetree support. This is because I aim to be in
sync with FSL when Yocto daisy is supported in Q3 or
thereabouts. However I have not completed that work yet, and I need
working images now based on the older u-boot/kernel
to enable us to prove out the hardware and go to higher volume board
manufacture in the short term.
So I'm currently using Yocto poky daisy (5306aaab) and the last
meta-fsl-arm commit before you (Otavio) removed the u-boot 2009.08
recipe (fc8bcfae0)
I have my own layer in which I have various .bbappends to, e.g. modify
SRC_URI / REV / BRANCH to use the custom u-boot, kernel, bring in apps
and so forth.
Build configuration here: http://pastebin.com/M6wL1yhB
Local.conf here: http://pastebin.com/hg4LbLJ5
...
As you can see we're building for MACHINE = imx6qsabresd. Also I have
preferred providers/versions set in local.conf for u-boot-imx 2009.08,
linux-imx 3.0.35
When I run a bitbake of my image I see
NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies
NOTE: preferred version 2009.08 of u-boot-imx not available (for item
u-boot)
NOTE: versions of u-boot-imx available: 2013.04
NOTE: preferred version 2009.08 of u-boot-imx not available (for item
u-boot-imx)
NOTE: versions of u-boot-imx available: 2013.04
NOTE: preferred version 2009.08 of u-boot-imx not available (for item
u-boot-imx-dev)
NOTE: versions of u-boot-imx available: 2013.04
This is because of the lines in /poky/meta/classes/uboot-config.bbclass
if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
WIth these two lines commented out I no longer see the not available
notes and can succesfully build u-boot-imx 2009.08
...
If I add in some logging, e.g.
bb.warn(ubootmachine: %s %ubootmachine )
bb.warn(ubootmachine: %s %ubootconfigflags )
#if ubootmachine and ubootconfigflags:
# raise bb.parse.SkipPackage(You cannot use UBOOT_MACHINE and
UBOOT_CONFIG at the same time.)
I see the following,
WARNING: ubootmachine:
mx6q_sabresd_config
| ETA: --:--:--
WARNING: ubootmachine: {'sata': 'mx6qsabresd_sata_config', 'mfgtool':
'mx6qsabresd_config', 'defaultval': 'sd', 'sd':
