[OE-core] adding meta-intel layers breaks parsing, was Re: Updating u-boot for oe-core or meta-yocto

[Koen Kooi]

Op 24 mei 2011, om 19:23 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:

> On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote:
>> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
> 
> why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you
> want to have some of those machines in a different layer.
> 
>> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on.
>> Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context:
>> 
>> 1) oe-core is intended to support emulated machines only
>> 2) oe-core has a "virgin" u-boot recipe (no patches)
>> 3) meta-yocto does not have a u-boot recipe (no bbappend either)
>> 4) meta-ti has it's own u-boot recipe with per-machine patches
>> 
>> A stated goal was to bring the Yocto Project's u-boot support for the
>> Beagleboard in line with that in meta-ti. There are several ways I can
>> go about this.
>> 
>> a) create a bbappend in meta-yocto and duplicate the meta-ti
>>   modifications in bbappend form.
>> b) Modify the oe-core recipe directly
>> 
>> While a) is the most direct approach to accomplish our goal, it requires
>> continual maintenance and duplicates effort. I don't care for this
>> approach. b) has the potential to consolidate all beagleboard u-boot
>> recipe work into a single place. It could simplify the meta-ti and
>> eliminate the need for a bbappend in the meta-yocto layer.
>> 
>> The question of whether bootloaders have a place in oe-core should
>> probably be addressed. While they aren't needed for the emulated
>> machines, they are a highly reusable component for real systems, and
>> that seems justify keeping them in oe-core. Does anyone disagree with
>> this assessment?
>> 
>> I propose pulling the necessary changes to u-boot from meta-ti into
>> oe-core. My initial scan suggested the beagleboard patches are mostly
>> contained to beagle specific source files. I would prefer to pull in all
>> the patches for all machines into the SRC_URI, rather than divide them
>> up by machine. This reduces complexity considerably. For the couple of
>> patches that collide, we would keep those as machine specific.
>> 
>> As a final part of the work, I would include my beagleboard patch status
>> audit in the included patches and continue to work on reducing the
>> patches in the recipe for the beagleboard.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Well I am in similar boat where I wanted to build atom-pc for angstrom
> but I was thinking using meta-intel layer instead of pulling stuff out
> and stuffing it elsewhere and certainly not oe-core

Speaking of meta-intel layers, when I add them to bblayer.conf I get:

ERROR: Error parsing /OE/tentacle/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-stable_git.bb: Failure expanding variable FILESEXTRAPATHS, expression was ${FILESEXTRAPATHS}:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel/meta-n450/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-stable which triggered exception Exception: variable FILESEXTRAPATHS references itself!

Same for jasperforest, emenlow, fishriver and crownbay. The only intel layer I can add without breaking the parsing step is sugarbay :(

Same goes for meta-xilinx, that breaks in the uboot recipe with some NoneType and string errors.

regards,

Koen