On 13-08-08 8:38 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 13-08-08 02:04 AM, Martin Ertsaas wrote:On 08/07/13 19:23, Bruce Ashfield wrote:On 13-08-07 12:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:Bruce, have you had the opportunity to look at this yet?I was about to email on this. I was out of the office last week, but was just starting on this last night. Cheers, BruceGreat. Thanks for the help btw. It is greatly appreciated. I'm kind of stuck on what I have done wrong on this one.Understood. I'm bumping this up to my list and have started a test build.
I've sorted this out. You didn't do anything wrong, outside of not defining a BSP description for the board you are building. I've had a patch queued for 1.5 that would have detected this mismatch and adapted, but that change is held up on the 3.10 kernel and some other changes .. but I digress. This also should have been in the docs, since it is what the yocto-bsp tool generates for new BSPs. But it's probably not obvious enough, and with my pending patches, that should be ok .. but I digress again. What basically happened is that the atom-pc BSP description was pickedto match your pandaboard build. That's why you see the different architecture
and what looks like an ignored defconfig. The tools will shortly generate you a skeleton config, but for now, you need to define your own that will be found and used. I've attached a patch that does just that, and when I configured, everything was applied properly. Cheers, Bruce
Bruce- Martin_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
0001-pandaboard-add-BSP-description.patch
Description: application/mbox
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
