kexec-tools: admit mips as a COMPATIBLE_HOST

Submitted by Phil Blundell on Sept. 24, 2012, 11:49 a.m.

Details

Message ID 1348487376.31293.31.camel@phil-desktop
State Accepted
Commit 372dc3cf95373225d512160a2ec3e16bf3dc5b8f
Headers show

Commit Message

Phil Blundell Sept. 24, 2012, 11:49 a.m.
Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net>
---
 meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc b/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc
index 278ce34..ee1f1e8 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc
@@ -12,6 +12,6 @@  SRC_URI = "${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/kernel/kexec/kexec-tools-${PV}.tar.gz
 
 inherit autotools
 
-COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
+COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
 
 INSANE_SKIP_${PN} = "arch"

Comments

Khem Raj Sept. 24, 2012, 6:28 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> -COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
> +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'

I wonder if this expression should be removed completely now that mips is added
we dont have any supported arch left.
McClintock Matthew-B29882 Sept. 24, 2012, 7:10 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> -COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
>> +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
>
> I wonder if this expression should be removed completely now that mips is added
> we dont have any supported arch left.

All the powerpc64 target still won't work (the Freescale ones at least).

-M

>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Khem Raj Sept. 24, 2012, 7:15 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:10 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> -COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
>>> +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
>>
>> I wonder if this expression should be removed completely now that mips is added
>> we dont have any supported arch left.
>
> All the powerpc64 target still won't work (the Freescale ones at least).

OK but above expression does not exclude ppc64 so you have a bug here.

>
> -M
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Phil Blundell Sept. 24, 2012, 8:23 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 11:28 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > -COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
> > +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
> 
> I wonder if this expression should be removed completely now that mips is added
> we dont have any supported arch left.

There are at least a few Linux architectures not in that list: alpha and
sparc are the obvious two, but there are a few more obscure ones as
well.  I don't think alpha has ever really been supported in oe-core,
but there are at least some sparc bits in there and, of course, it is
possible for an external layer to add support for new architectures.
Plus, of course, there is the OS side: if you were targetting mingw32
for example then kexec-tools would clearly not work.

However, all that said, I tend to agree that the COMPATIBLE_HOST check
isn't buying much in this recipe.  The original intent of
COMPATIBLE_MACHINE (and later COMPATIBLE_HOST) was to prevent bitbake
from selecting inappropriate providers to satisfy a virtual dependency:
in particular, the idea was that it would stop you picking up a kernel
recipe for some completely unrelated hardware.  In the case of
kexec-tools there are no alternative providers available and it isn't
totally obvious that having the recipe skip itself on a host that it
thinks is "unsupported" is really any better than letting it try and
fail to build.  So I would be happy to see that check removed.

p.
Richard Purdie Sept. 24, 2012, 8:51 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:23 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 11:28 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > -COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
> > > +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
> > 
> > I wonder if this expression should be removed completely now that mips is added
> > we dont have any supported arch left.
> 
> There are at least a few Linux architectures not in that list: alpha and
> sparc are the obvious two, but there are a few more obscure ones as
> well.  I don't think alpha has ever really been supported in oe-core,
> but there are at least some sparc bits in there and, of course, it is
> possible for an external layer to add support for new architectures.
> Plus, of course, there is the OS side: if you were targetting mingw32
> for example then kexec-tools would clearly not work.
> 
> However, all that said, I tend to agree that the COMPATIBLE_HOST check
> isn't buying much in this recipe.  The original intent of
> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE (and later COMPATIBLE_HOST) was to prevent bitbake
> from selecting inappropriate providers to satisfy a virtual dependency:
> in particular, the idea was that it would stop you picking up a kernel
> recipe for some completely unrelated hardware.  In the case of
> kexec-tools there are no alternative providers available and it isn't
> totally obvious that having the recipe skip itself on a host that it
> thinks is "unsupported" is really any better than letting it try and
> fail to build.  So I would be happy to see that check removed.

Going back in time, kexec only worked on a handful of platforms so the
check made sense. Now mips support is there, it can probably be removed.

Part of the reasoning this is here is to make world builds useful as a
test that everything builds.

Cheers,

Richard
Saul Wold Sept. 27, 2012, 3:55 p.m.
On 09/24/2012 04:49 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net>
> ---
>   meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc |    2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc b/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc
> index 278ce34..ee1f1e8 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.inc
> @@ -12,6 +12,6 @@ SRC_URI = "${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/kernel/kexec/kexec-tools-${PV}.tar.gz
>
>   inherit autotools
>
> -COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
> +COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux|freebsd.*)'
>
>   INSANE_SKIP_${PN} = "arch"
>
Merged into OE-Core

Sau!