On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:56 AM Karthik Poduval <karthik.podu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Mikko, > > Do you have an example on how you do that ? Do you bbapend the > linux-libc-headers recipe file ? > I have an application that uses dmabuf heap that potentially extends > across multiple BSP's as its BSP agnostic. I don't want to be patching > individual BSP recipes and generating headers. The issue I am facing > is due to backporting the patch from 5.6 to 5.4 so the required header > isn't a part of the linux-libc-headers.bb recipe. Best would have been > a virtual/kernel-keaders target that applications that require BSP > headers would add to their recipe DEPENDS. Why is this not a solved > issue by yocto project ? Why do individual BSP's need to deal with > this differently when the header install mechanism (make > headers_install) is the same irrespective of the type of BSP ?
Because it's not a simple thing to solve (and there's a bugzilla around for it already, where the thoughts and issues are captured, but that one seems to have been closed and I can't find it at the moment). I do have a WIP class that provides some different modes (https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5305), but with corner cases and concerns, it keeps slipping. Feel free to try it out and comment in the bug (I'll try myself to be sure it still applied, it has been a few months). What works for your case, doesn't mean it is a general/supporable solution. But generally speaking, It's an incredibly bad idea to have your libc-headers tied to the kernel you are building. Every time that kernel changes, you basically need to rebuild the entire stack .. hence the bad idea. It is such a common question, that we actually put a warning in the libc-headers recipe itself. We do not really want a parallel set of headers in the shared workdir, that are from the currently built kernel. You'd end up with all sorts of mismatches and cross includes and potential different behaviour per-application. We already have the kernel source installed into the shared workdir, which is what the tips in the libc-headers recipe suggest using. And it honestly isn't so common the need for sanitized headers that the need for something like I did in that bug has made it necessary. Bruce > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 5:18 AM <mikko.rap...@bmw.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I know it's not the best or recommended approach, but I find it > > hard to avoid merging linux-libc-headers recipe with the actual > > kernel recipe that a distro is using. At least a static copy > > of some version of uapi headers from that kernel can be used > > instead of the poky side linux-libc-headers. This helps to get > > the actual BSP SW delivery headers into userspace, SDK etc. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -Mikko > > > > -- > Regards, > Karthik Poduval -- - Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end - "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#52460): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/52460 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/80841186/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
