Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

2016-10-11 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2016-10-12 03:24, Gary Thomas wrote: On 2016-10-11 15:54, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post wrote: We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon" Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be

Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

2016-10-11 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2016-10-11 15:54, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post wrote: We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon" Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine overrides

[meta-freescale] [PATCH] linux-mfgtool.inc: Fix Taskhash mismatch due kernel version re-evaluation

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador
KERNEL_VERSION is extracted from source code. It is evaluated as None for the first parsing, since the code has not been fetched. After the code is fetched, it will be evaluated as real version number and cause kernel to be rebuilt. To avoid this, make KERNEL_VERSION_NAME and

[meta-freescale] Problem with developer sdk

2016-10-11 Thread idealsim
Hi, i have rebuild an image of yocto krogoth with qt 5.6.2 (lasted release). The problem is now i have a problem with developer sdk. The problem is when i use it with a host machine (after install the script and configure qt creator), i obtain this error when i want to deploy an app :

[meta-freescale] Updates to meta-freescale (master) in 2016-10-11

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador
Hello, I pushed following updates: commit 0a1192e5348f09848c2d537eaf02e795d7ec0f66 (HEAD -> master-next, m/master, m/krogoth, github/master-next, github/master) Author: Fabio Berton Date: Mon Oct 10 16:29:11 2016 -0300 linux-fslc: Update to 4.8-based fork

Re: [meta-freescale] U-Boot Verified Boot?

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador
Hello Mark, On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Mark Farver wrote: > Has anyone done any work or thinking about bringing the uboot-sign > class into fsl? I am not aware of someone working on this but I am interested in help. -- Otavio Salvador

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 1/7] imx-base: Add MACHINE extender for i.MX 6ULL

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
i.MX 6ULL include pxp and epdc Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc index 09ab4ad..e2b342b 100644 ---

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 2/7] imx-base: Add Preferred Provider for i.MX 6ULL U-Boot

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
Use i.MX U-Boot since this is new SoC Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc index e2b342b..4378fbb 100644 ---

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 4/7] imx-base: Add Kernel preferred provider for i.MX 6ULL

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
Use linux-imx as preferred providedr for new SOC i.MX 6ULL Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc index 3907e24..9bbf4d8

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 7/7] imx6ull14x14evk: Add i.MX 6ULL 14x14 EVK

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
Add i.MX 6ULL 14x14 EVK Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- conf/machine/imx6ull14x14evk.conf | 23 +++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) create mode 100644 conf/machine/imx6ull14x14evk.conf diff --git a/conf/machine/imx6ull14x14evk.conf

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 5/7] eudev: Bring back 2 patches from udev for user firmware loading for 6ULL

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
i.MX 6ULL has EPDC display and requires user level firmware loading in udev. This feature was removed with eudev and is required for 6ULL to load display. Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- ...evert-rules-remove-firmware-loading-rules.patch | 28 ++

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 0/7] Upgrade to 4.1.15-2.0.0 release

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
Note that 4.1.15-2.0.0 BSP patch updates have been sent to Otavio and are already included in master-next on meta-freescale. i.MX 4.1.15-2.0.0 release supports new i.MX 6ULL EVK included in this patch set. Patches in master-next include the following changes in master-next - Kernel upgrade to

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 6/7] imx6ull9x9evk: Add i.MX 6ULL 9x9 evk

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
Add supprot for i.MX 6ULL 9x9 evk Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- conf/machine/imx6ull9x9evk.conf | 19 +++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) create mode 100644 conf/machine/imx6ull9x9evk.conf diff --git a/conf/machine/imx6ull9x9evk.conf

[meta-freescale] [PATCH 3/7] imx-base: Add epdc firmware for i.MX 6ULL

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
Signed-off-by: Lauren Post --- conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc index 4378fbb..3907e24 100644 --- a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc +++

Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lauren Post wrote: > We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL > > DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon" Good catch Lauren. Gary, your machine must be missing a proper machine overrides setting. Please take a look. -- Otavio Salvador

Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

2016-10-11 Thread Lauren Post
We test with hard in our release for i.MX 6UL DEFAULTTUNE_mx6ul ?= "cortexa7hf-neon" -Original Message- From: meta-freescale-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:20 AM To: Gary Thomas

[meta-freescale] U-Boot Verified Boot?

2016-10-11 Thread Mark Farver
Has anyone done any work or thinking about bringing the uboot-sign class into fsl? I've been playing with it, but the process used for generating the u-boot image doesn't generate the right artifacts. The class wants to concatenate the public key DTB onto the end of a u-boot image with no DTB.

Re: [meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

2016-10-11 Thread Otavio Salvador
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Gary Thomas wrote: > I'm working with machines that have i.MX6Q/DL and i.MX6UL and noticed > that they have quite different tuning. > > i.MX6Q: > TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard > cortexa9" > TARGET_FPU

[meta-freescale] i.MX6Q vs i.MX6UL tuning

2016-10-11 Thread Gary Thomas
I'm working with machines that have i.MX6Q/DL and i.MX6UL and noticed that they have quite different tuning. i.MX6Q: TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard cortexa9" TARGET_FPU= "hard" i.MX6UL: TUNE_FEATURES = "arm armv7ve vfp thumb neon cortexa7"