Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into valid_archs table

2016-10-19 Thread Bystricky, Juro 
Thanks. I will add the test for TARGET_OS in a separate patch.

> -Original Message-
> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:53 AM
> To: Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; jurobystri...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into
> valid_archs table
> 
> 
> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The single purpose of "map_kernel_arch" is to set
> >
> > export ARCH = "arch_xxx"
> >
> > Presently, we must set ARCH even when building baremetal toolchains only,
> > without any need to build kernel. However, in this case we may
> > encounter a bogus error such as "cannot map arch_xxx to a linux kernel
> architecture".
> > The simplest way to avoid this is to place arch_xxx into the table
> > "valid_archs". (That was the main reason for the patch).
> >
> > A better but more complex way would be to modify the code so
> > map_kernel_arch is not called at all when NOT building kernel or kernel
> > modules. This would also allow building baremetal cross-toolchains for
> arches
> > that don't have Linux kernels at all.
> >
> > Another way to consider is perhaps just getting rid of the table
> > "valid_archs" entirely.
> >
> > "map_kernel_arch" maps arch_aaa -> arch_xxx for some cases.
> > If there is no explicit mapping, then it could simply map
> >
> > arch_aaa->arch_aaa
> >
> > resulting in export ARCH="arch_aaa"
> > There would be no error generated. If ARCH is not a valid
> > arch for a Linux kernel, we would encounter a build error at some point.
> > But that, I believe is the same case now if we try to build a kernel
> > with a valid kernel ARCH but not supported actively in OE or extended OE
> ecosystem.
> 
> I think you should add a check for testing TARGET_OS and if its not linux
> then
> ignore the valid kernel arches check.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:40 PM
> >> To: Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> >> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; jurobystri...@hotmail.com
> >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc
> into
> >> valid_archs table
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add
> >>> them into valid_archs table.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel-
> >> arch.bbclass
> >>> index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644
> >>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> >>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> >>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \
> >>>   parisc s390  v850 \
> >>>   avr32 blackfin \
> >>>   microblaze \
> >>> -   nios2"
> >>> +   nios2 arc xtensa”
> >>
> >> there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we
> >> should
> >> remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE
> ecosystem.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> def map_kernel_arch(a, d):
> >>>import re
> >>> --
> >>> 2.7.4
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ___
> >>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >

-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into valid_archs table

2016-10-18 Thread Khem Raj 

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> The single purpose of "map_kernel_arch" is to set
> 
> export ARCH = "arch_xxx"
> 
> Presently, we must set ARCH even when building baremetal toolchains only,
> without any need to build kernel. However, in this case we may
> encounter a bogus error such as "cannot map arch_xxx to a linux kernel 
> architecture".
> The simplest way to avoid this is to place arch_xxx into the table
> "valid_archs". (That was the main reason for the patch).
> 
> A better but more complex way would be to modify the code so
> map_kernel_arch is not called at all when NOT building kernel or kernel
> modules. This would also allow building baremetal cross-toolchains for arches
> that don't have Linux kernels at all.
> 
> Another way to consider is perhaps just getting rid of the table
> "valid_archs" entirely.
> 
> "map_kernel_arch" maps arch_aaa -> arch_xxx for some cases.
> If there is no explicit mapping, then it could simply map
> 
> arch_aaa->arch_aaa
> 
> resulting in export ARCH="arch_aaa"
> There would be no error generated. If ARCH is not a valid
> arch for a Linux kernel, we would encounter a build error at some point.
> But that, I believe is the same case now if we try to build a kernel
> with a valid kernel ARCH but not supported actively in OE or extended OE 
> ecosystem.

I think you should add a check for testing TARGET_OS and if its not linux then
ignore the valid kernel arches check.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:40 PM
>> To: Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
>> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; jurobystri...@hotmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into
>> valid_archs table
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add
>>> them into valid_archs table.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel-
>> arch.bbclass
>>> index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
>>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \
>>>   parisc s390  v850 \
>>>   avr32 blackfin \
>>>   microblaze \
>>> -   nios2"
>>> +   nios2 arc xtensa”
>> 
>> there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we
>> should
>> remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE ecosystem.
>> 
>>> 
>>> def map_kernel_arch(a, d):
>>>import re
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ___
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into valid_archs table

2016-10-18 Thread Bystricky, Juro 
The single purpose of "map_kernel_arch" is to set 

export ARCH = "arch_xxx"

Presently, we must set ARCH even when building baremetal toolchains only, 
without any need to build kernel. However, in this case we may 
encounter a bogus error such as "cannot map arch_xxx to a linux kernel 
architecture".
The simplest way to avoid this is to place arch_xxx into the table
"valid_archs". (That was the main reason for the patch).

A better but more complex way would be to modify the code so
map_kernel_arch is not called at all when NOT building kernel or kernel
modules. This would also allow building baremetal cross-toolchains for arches
that don't have Linux kernels at all.

Another way to consider is perhaps just getting rid of the table
"valid_archs" entirely.

"map_kernel_arch" maps arch_aaa -> arch_xxx for some cases.
If there is no explicit mapping, then it could simply map 

arch_aaa->arch_aaa

resulting in export ARCH="arch_aaa"
There would be no error generated. If ARCH is not a valid
arch for a Linux kernel, we would encounter a build error at some point.
But that, I believe is the same case now if we try to build a kernel
with a valid kernel ARCH but not supported actively in OE or extended OE 
ecosystem.




> -Original Message-
> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:40 PM
> To: Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; jurobystri...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into
> valid_archs table
> 
> 
> > On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add
> > them into valid_archs table.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel-
> arch.bbclass
> > index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644
> > --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> > +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \
> >parisc s390  v850 \
> >avr32 blackfin \
> >microblaze \
> > -   nios2"
> > +   nios2 arc xtensa”
> 
> there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we
> should
> remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE ecosystem.
> 
> >
> > def map_kernel_arch(a, d):
> > import re
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> > --
> > ___
> > Openembedded-core mailing list
> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into valid_archs table

2016-10-17 Thread Khem Raj 

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky  wrote:
> 
> Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add
> them into valid_archs table.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky 
> ---
> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass 
> b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \
>parisc s390  v850 \
>avr32 blackfin \
>microblaze \
> -   nios2"
> +   nios2 arc xtensa”

there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we should
remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE ecosystem.

> 
> def map_kernel_arch(a, d):
> import re
> --
> 2.7.4
> 
> --
> ___
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

[OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into valid_archs table

2016-10-11 Thread Juro Bystricky 
Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add
them into valid_archs table.

Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky 
---
 meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644
--- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \
parisc s390  v850 \
avr32 blackfin \
microblaze \
-   nios2"
+   nios2 arc xtensa"
 
 def map_kernel_arch(a, d):
 import re
-- 
2.7.4

-- 
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core