| Submitter | Christopher Larson |
|---|---|
| Date | March 22, 2012, 3 p.m. |
| Message ID | <1332428403-25048-1-git-send-email-kergoth@gmail.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/24137/ |
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Christopher Larson <kergoth@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com> > > There's a problem in arch-powerpc.inc today, wherein it directly sets > TUNE_PKGARCH, rather than setting TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning>. As a result, > more specific tuning files (e.g. ppce500mc) then see their > TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-<tuning> variable definitions no longer obeyed. As > a consequence, the TUNE_PKGARCH ends up as 'powerpc' or 'powerpc-nf' rather > than 'ppce500mc', which in turn causes a 'TUNE_PKGARCH not in PACKAGE_ARCHS' > failure in the build. > > To fix, the .inc now sets TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc and > TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf rather than TUNE_PKGARCH. > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Larson <chris_larson@mentor.com> > --- > meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc | 5 +++-- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644 > --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc > @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e > PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}" > > PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}" > -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}" > > # Basic tune definitions > -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" > +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" > TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft" > +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}" > BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib" > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf" > TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard" > +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}" > BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib" > PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc Hmm, actually, there's no reason these can't just set TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "powerpc", etc rather than using the PPCPKGARCH indirection. Anyone more familiar with the tuning code have an opinion here?
Patch
diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc index c9b2829..f811a3e 100644 --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/powerpc/arch-powerpc.inc @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ ABIEXTENSION = "${@['','spe'][d.getVar('TARGET_FPU', True) in ['ppc-efd', 'ppc-e PPCPKGSFX_FPU = "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "fpu-hard" , "", "-nf", d)}" PPCPKGARCH = "${TUNE_ARCH}${PPCPKGSFX_FPU}" -TUNE_PKGARCH ?= "${PPCPKGARCH}" # Basic tune definitions -AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" +AVAILTUNES += "powerpc powerpc-nf" TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc-nf ?= "m32 fpu-soft" +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc-nf = "${PPCPKGARCH}" BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc-nf = "lib" PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc-nf = "powerpc-nf" TUNE_FEATURES_tune-powerpc ?= "m32 fpu-hard" +TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-powerpc = "${PPCPKGARCH}" BASE_LIB_tune-powerpc = "lib" PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_tune-powerpc = "powerpc"