[OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into valid_archs table

[Khem Raj]

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystricky at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> The single purpose of "map_kernel_arch" is to set
> 
> export ARCH = "arch_xxx"
> 
> Presently, we must set ARCH even when building baremetal toolchains only,
> without any need to build kernel. However, in this case we may
> encounter a bogus error such as "cannot map arch_xxx to a linux kernel architecture".
> The simplest way to avoid this is to place arch_xxx into the table
> "valid_archs". (That was the main reason for the patch).
> 
> A better but more complex way would be to modify the code so
> map_kernel_arch is not called at all when NOT building kernel or kernel
> modules. This would also allow building baremetal cross-toolchains for arches
> that don't have Linux kernels at all.
> 
> Another way to consider is perhaps just getting rid of the table
> "valid_archs" entirely.
> 
> "map_kernel_arch" maps arch_aaa -> arch_xxx for some cases.
> If there is no explicit mapping, then it could simply map
> 
> arch_aaa->arch_aaa
> 
> resulting in export ARCH="arch_aaa"
> There would be no error generated. If ARCH is not a valid
> arch for a Linux kernel, we would encounter a build error at some point.
> But that, I believe is the same case now if we try to build a kernel
> with a valid kernel ARCH but not supported actively in OE or extended OE ecosystem.

I think you should add a check for testing TARGET_OS and if its not linux then
ignore the valid kernel arches check.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.khem at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:40 PM
>> To: Bystricky, Juro <juro.bystricky at intel.com>
>> Cc: openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org; jurobystricky at hotmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] kernel-arch.bbclass: Add xtensa and arc into
>> valid_archs table
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky <juro.bystricky at intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add
>>> them into valid_archs table.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky <juro.bystricky at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel-
>> arch.bbclass
>>> index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass
>>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \
>>>               parisc s390  v850 \
>>>               avr32 blackfin \
>>>               microblaze \
>>> -               nios2"
>>> +               nios2 arc xtensa”
>> 
>> there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we
>> should
>> remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE ecosystem.
>> 
>>> 
>>> def map_kernel_arch(a, d):
>>>    import re
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>> 
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20161018/beed9bf4/attachment-0002.sig>