[OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Allow 'baremetal' CPUs

[Phil Blundell]

I think what I'm saying is that the whole ARCH thing is a linuxism that
should not be popping up in a baremetal (or any other non-linux)
configuration, and hacking map_kernel_arch() to return some
benign-but-bogus value seems like the wrong fix for it.  Particularly if
this hacking is based on the value of TCLIBC which, conceptually, is not
all that tightly bound to a kernel.

If there are places in the metadata that "inherit kernel-arch" in a
non-linux-specific context then I think we should figure out some way to
eliminate them.  In the longer term I think it would make sense to have
a "kernel" -> "linux" renaming to make these assumptions more explicit.

p.

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 21:27 +0000, Bystricky, Juro wrote:
> I would not call it a real bug. The code just tries to initialize ARCH  (which may not be used
> for baremetal situations). The name "map_kernel_arch" is a bit misleading
> in this (baremetal) context.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Blundell [mailto:pb at pbcl.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 2:21 AM
> > To: Bystricky, Juro
> > Cc: openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org; Purdie, Richard
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Allow 'baremetal' CPUs
> > 
> > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 18:19 -0700, Juro Bystricky wrote:
> > > Avoid "ERROR: cannot map <cpu> to a linux kernel architecture"
> > > Not being able to map a CPU to a kernel architecture should not be
> > > treated as an error when building baremetal toolchains for CPU <cpu>
> > > which does not have a kernel source tree.
> > 
> > Why is map_kernel_arch() even being invoked for a baremetal
> > configuration?  That sounds like it is the real bug here.
> > 
> > p.
> > 
>