[OE-core] Can't build product that uses DEFAULTTUNE="arm926ejs"

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:49 AM Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
> > Sent: den 11 mars 2019 05:24
> > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com>
> > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org) <openembedded-
> > core at lists.openembedded.org>
> > Subject: Re: Can't build product that uses DEFAULTTUNE="arm926ejs"
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 9:20 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
> > <peter.kjellerstedt at axis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm trying to build with master of OE-core and one of our products
> > > now fails with:
> > >
> > > ERROR:  OE-core's config sanity checker detected a potential misconfiguration.
> > >     Either fix the cause of this error or at your own risk disable the checker
> > >     (see sanity.conf). Following is the list of potential problems / advisories:
> > >
> > >     Error, the PACKAGE_ARCHS variable (all any noarch arm armv4 armv4t armv5
> > >     armv5t armv5e armv5te arm926ejste arm926ejse <BSP name withheld>) for
> > >     DEFAULTTUNE (arm926ejs) does not contain TUNE_PKGARCH (arm926ejst).
> > >
> > > I believe this is due to commit ac83d22e (arm-tunes: Remove -march
> > > option if mcpu is already added). If I build with Thud, TUNE_PKGARCH
> > > is "arm926ejste". The  lack of the "e" at the end when building with
> > > master seems to be due to the definition of ARMPKGSFX_DSP as
> > > "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', [ 'armv5', 'dsp' ], 'e', '', d)}"
> > > and the fact that after commit ac83d22e, TUNE_FEATURES no longer
> > > contains 'armv5'.
> >
> > right this should now check for armv5t
>
> There is no armv5t to check for.
>
> > armv5 has been removed from upstream gcc as well. So we only support
> > armv5t variants.
> >
> > > //Peter
>
> I am by no means any expert on the tuning files (actually they mostly
> seem like black magic), but I devised an alternative solution for
> preferring -mcpu over -march that I think is less invasive and without
> unwanted side effects. I will publish it shortly.

I saw you sent couple of patch to address this, however I think it can
be addressed a bit differently and patch could
be simple. I would be keen if you try it out and see if that fixes your problem

https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/159591/

>
> //Peter
>