On Tue 2023-10-03 @ 12:32:08 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Trevor,
>
> On 10/3/23 06:19, Trevor Woerner via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > The upstream kernel reorganized the 32-bit arch/arm device-tree directory
> > structure
> > to separate out the device-trees by manufacturer (similar to the
> > organization
> > of the arch/arm64 device-trees). Update the references to 32-bit arm
> > device-trees to match.
> >
>
> Does this work with linux-yocto and linux-yocto-dev from master or do we
> need to add some logic to support both (do you want to?).
This doesn't work at all. I figured this was an easy one, made the tweak,
submitted it, then added it to my jenkins builder to verify overnight. Woke up
to find the do_image_wic() tasks failed. It's the same layout as the 64-bit
machines but I'll have to dig in to figure out why it didn't work.
As for the linux-yocto vs linux-yocto-dev question I'll take a look. This
happened with linux-yocto, so I would assume it is already the case with
linux-yocto-dev. But if oe-core supports multiple versions of linux-yocto,
that might be the tricky bit and yes, I would look into supporting both for
the time-being until the transition period ends.
Although... any BSP layer supporting 32-bit machines will have similar issues,
so perhaps there's a better way to solve this in oe-core?
Best regards,
Trevor
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#61217): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/61217
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101728482/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
