Going beyond MACHINE?

DISCUSSION Mike Looijmans 3 participants 6 messages Oct 20, 2014 – Nov 4, 2014

lore

Share & tools

lore

Mike Looijmans

author

2014-10-20 11:55 UTC #0 lore raw

The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE?

My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems):

I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015 and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA part (the 7030 is bigger and faster). Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and libraries are exactly the same.

Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami" so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages.

However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they are exactly the same.

The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option.

Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be the only thing he can really choose?

Any thoughts and ideas are welcome...

Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Mike Looijmans

TOPIC Embedded Systems
Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best
Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79
Telefax: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.topic.nl

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/

Richard Purdie

2014-10-20 12:04 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 21 lines · Mike Looijmans

The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE?
My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems):
I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015 and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA part (the 7030 is bigger and faster).
Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and libraries are exactly the same.
Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami" so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages.
However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they are exactly the same.
The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option.

Quoted 6 lines

Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be the only thing he can really choose?
Any thoughts and ideas are welcome...

One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python injected at the machine level.

Cheers,

Richard

Mike Looijmans

author

2014-10-20 12:40 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 27 lines · Richard Purdie

Quoted 26 lines · Mike Looijmans
The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE?
My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems):
I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015 and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA part (the 7030 is bigger and faster).
Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and libraries are exactly the same.
Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami" so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages.
However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they are exactly the same.
The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option.
Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be the only thing he can really choose?

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 1 line
Any thoughts and ideas are welcome...
One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python injected at the machine level.

Sounds doable, but I can't find anything about "intel gmgd" in any layer. Which machine are you referring to here?

Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Mike Looijmans

TOPIC Embedded Systems Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79
Telefax: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.topic.nl

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/

Otavio Salvador

2014-10-20 13:36 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 54 lines · Mike Looijmans

Quoted 45 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 40 lines · Mike Looijmans
The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE?
My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems):
I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015
and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA
part (the 7030 is bigger and faster).
Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and
libraries are exactly the same.
Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami"
so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages.
However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they
are exactly the same.
The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both
models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both
into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option.
Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make
sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a
user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be
the only thing he can really choose?
Quoted 1 line
Any thoughts and ideas are welcome...
Quoted 6 lines
One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python injected at the machine level.

Quoted 2 lines

Sounds doable, but I can't find anything about "intel gmgd" in any layer. Which machine are you referring to here?

We did something similar in meta-fsl-arm, check:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-fsl-arm/tree/classes/fsl-dynamic-packagearch.bbclass
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-fsl-arm/tree/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc#n41

This should be easy to adapt for your specific case.

Signature · 3 lines

Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Richard Purdie

2014-10-20 15:24 UTC #5 lore raw

In reply to Mike Looijmans

Quoted 37 lines · Mike Looijmans

Quoted 27 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 26 lines · Mike Looijmans
The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE?
My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems):
I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015 and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA part (the 7030 is bigger and faster).
Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and libraries are exactly the same.
Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami" so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages.
However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they are exactly the same.
The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option.
Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be the only thing he can really choose?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any thoughts and ideas are welcome...
One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python injected at the machine level.

Quoted 2 lines

Sounds doable, but I can't find anything about "intel gmgd" in any layer. Which machine are you referring to here?

Sorry, emgd:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/tree/classes/emgd-gl.bbclass?h=daisy
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/tree/conf/machine/include/meta-intel-emgd.inc?h=daisy

I have actually sent Scott some text for the manual about this but its not been edited yet.

Cheers,

Richard

Mike Looijmans

author

2014-11-04 15:05 UTC #4 lore raw

In reply to Otavio Salvador

Quoted 59 lines · Otavio Salvador

Quoted 54 lines · Mike Looijmans
Quoted 45 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 40 lines · Mike Looijmans
The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE?
My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems):
I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015
and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA
part (the 7030 is bigger and faster).
Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and
libraries are exactly the same.
Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami"
so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages.
However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they
are exactly the same.
The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both
models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both
into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option.
Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make
sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a
user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be
the only thing he can really choose?
Quoted 1 line
Any thoughts and ideas are welcome...
Quoted 6 lines
One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python injected at the machine level.
Quoted 2 lines
Sounds doable, but I can't find anything about "intel gmgd" in any layer. Which machine are you referring to here?

Quoted 6 lines

We did something similar in meta-fsl-arm, check:
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-fsl-arm/tree/classes/fsl-dynamic-packagearch.bbclass
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-fsl-arm/tree/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc#n41
This should be easy to adapt for your specific case.

I experimented with both suggestions. The fsl method works well to prevent multiple kernels being built for the same machine, but I have to "whitelist" packages that I want to change. Since there's only one type of package that depends on the last four digits of the machine name, I'm thinking about going in a different direction.

I set MACHINE to a pattern like "<SOM>-<CARRIER>-<FPGA>"

Then I split this into MACHINE_ARCH="<SOM>_<CARRIER>", SOM_FAMILY="<SOM>" and introduce FPGA_FAMILY="<FPGA>" in the machine.conf file.

Thus, for a topic-miami SOM featuring a 7015 on a florida carrier board, this would result in:

MACHINE = "topic-miami-florida-7015"

MACHINE_BOARD = "${@'-'.join(d.getVar('MACHINE', True).split('-')[:-1])}" MACHINE_ARCH = "${@'_'.join(d.getVar('MACHINE', True).split('-')[:-1])}" SOM_FAMILY = "${@'-'.join(d.getVar('MACHINE', True).split('-')[:-2])}" FPGA_FAMILY = "${@d.getVar('MACHINE', True).split('-')[-1:]}"

Then add these to the MACHINEOVERRIDES and EXTRA_ARCHS:

MACHINEOVERRIDES .= "${SOM_FAMILY}:${MACHINE_BOARD}:{FPGA_FAMILY}:"

PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS_append = " ${FPGA_FAMILY}"

That should build machine specific packages by default at the "board" level, while the FPGA recipes would specify PACKAGE_ARCH="${FPGA_FAMILY}" and hence get selected based on FPGA type only.

What do you think, should this work (in particular, setting MACHINE_ARCH might have unforeseen consequences), or will this leave no survivors?

Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Mike Looijmans
System Expert

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/