On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:59 AM Quentin Schulz via lists.yoctoproject.org <quentin.schulz=theobroma-systems....@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
> Hi Trevor, > > On 10/3/23 15:38, Trevor Woerner wrote: > > 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. > > > > This was done in v6.5-rc1 so anything before won't work sadly. > > master branch of poky supports 6.1 6.4 and 6.5 for linux-yocto > (linux-yocto-dev being typically newer than the latest linux-yocto and > the latest linux-yocto already having the change, I'll omit the change > for linux-yocto-dev). > > For reference, denix on IRC suggested you look at > > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=04ab57d20009d85eb566e83ae6fe1dcea4db7300 > for what we're trying to do here. But I think this isn't applying to how > the DTB is found but rather where it's put and this is too late for us. > > I think we need to modify get_real_dtb_path_in_kernel in > meta/classes-recipe/kernel-devicetree.bbclass instead. > > We could handle it this way for example to allow a fallback: > """ > get_real_dtb_path_in_kernel:arm () { > dtb="$1" > dtb_path="${B}/arch/${ARCH}/boot/dts/$dtb" > # Handle pre-v6.5 layout for Aarch32/ARM DTB > if [ ! -e "$dtb_path" ]; then > dtb_path="${B}/arch/${ARCH}/boot/dts/$(basename "$dtb")" > fi > if [ ! -e "$dtb_path" ]; then > dtb_path="${B}/arch/${ARCH}/boot/$dtb" > fi > # Handle pre-v6.5 layout for Aarch32/ARM DTB > if [ ! -e "$dtb_path" ]; then > dtb_path="${B}/arch/${ARCH}/boot/$(basename "$dtb")" > fi > > echo "$dtb_path" > } > """ > (to be determined if "arm" is a valid OVERRIDES, otherwise we need to > check against "ARCH" bb variable; also not sure about the second > basename if it's necessary at all). > > Then you would just have KERNEL_DEVICETREE done the same way as in this > patch: > KERNEL_DEVICETREE = "rockchip/rk3066a-marsboard.dtb" > > and we wouldn't have to handle it on the recipe level. > > Otherwise, we could do the following: > RK_KERNEL_DEVICETREE = "rockchip/rk3066a-marsboard.dtb" > KERNEL_DEVICETREE ?= "${RK_KERNEL_DEVICETREE}" > > then have a bbappend for all old-layout recipes: > linux-yocto-rt_6.1.bbappend > linux-yocto-tiny_6.1.bbappend > linux-yocto_6.1.bbappend > linux-yocto-rt_6.4.bbappend > linux-yocto-tiny_6.4.bbappend > linux-yocto_6.4.bbappend > > KERNEL_DEVICETREE:arm = "${@' '.join(os.path.basename(dtb) for dtb in > d.getVar('RK_KERNEL_DEVICETREE').split())}" > > or something like that. We probably want to have something a bit more > precise than just arm to avoid breaking other arm machine conf files > which do not define RK_KERNEL_DEVICETREE, maybe > KERNEL_DEVICETREE:rockchip:arm if that is even resolving properly. > > > 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? > > > Adding Bruce in Cc, I hope he doesn't mind being summoned like this. > Maybe you have an idea on how to handle both the new and old layout for > ARM/Aarch32 DTB in the kernel for the KERNEL_DEVICETREE variable? > My last run in with this may have been before some of the most recent device tree handling patches, and/or I may have been doing it wrong. But my solution was to simply override the variable in a kernel version specific bbappend, and not do it in the conf files. But of course, if that variable is being interpreted by a different class in the global namespace, then the kernel bbappend approach isn't going to work anymore. I've stayed away from utilities or searching, etc, rather just a way for the configuration to specify directly what to find, as anything that searches ends up being fragile. Bruce > > Cheers, > Quentin > > > > -- - 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 (#61240): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/61240 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101728482/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
