[U-Boot] [ANN] U-Boot v2017.07-rc2 released
Hey all,
It's release day and v2017.07-rc2 is out. I'm mostly happy with the size of the changes here and I did remember to sync the defconfigs prior to tagging.
If anyone has critical fixes I've missed or some Kconfig migrations (that I can prove out as correct), please speak up.
Things look on track for -rc3 on July 3rd and release on July 10th. Thanks all!
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hey all,
It's release day and v2017.07-rc2 is out. I'm mostly happy with the size of the changes here and I did remember to sync the defconfigs prior to tagging.
If anyone has critical fixes I've missed or some Kconfig migrations (that I can prove out as correct), please speak up.
Things look on track for -rc3 on July 3rd and release on July 10th. Thanks all!
I'm seeing failures/regression in this cycle (both RC1 and RC2) building a lot of the boards, I suspect this is a difference between using upstream (with python support patches) dtc vs the in-tree one. We use the upstream one to ensure we get consistency across all dtc consumers so it would be nice to have the same functionality as prior releases.
Peter
gcc -Wp,-MD,spl/drivers/mmc/.sunxi_mmc.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/7/include -Iinclude -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/include -include /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include/linux/kconfig.h -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/spl/drivers/mmc -Ispl/drivers/mmc -D__KERNEL__ -D__UBOOT__ -DCONFIG_SPL_BUILD -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-format-security -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -Os -fno-stack-protector -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -g -fstack-usage -Wno-format-nonliteral -Werror=date-time -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -D__ARM__ -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-unaligned-access -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -ffixed-r9 -msoft-float -pipe -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/include -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -c -o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/serial.o spl/drivers/serial/serial_ns16550.o spl/drivers/serial/ns16550.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc_legacy.o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/built-in.o spl/drivers/i2c/built-in.o spl/drivers/gpio/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/pmic/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/regulator/built-in.o spl/drivers/block/built-in.o (cd spl && ld.bfd -T u-boot-spl.lds --gc-sections -Bstatic --gc-sections --no-dynamic-linker -Ttext 0x60 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.o --start-group arch/arm/mach-sunxi/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/armv7/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/built-in.o arch/arm/lib/built-in.o board/sunxi/built-in.o common/spl/built-in.o common/init/built-in.o common/built-in.o cmd/built-in.o lib/built-in.o disk/built-in.o drivers/built-in.o dts/built-in.o fs/built-in.o --end-group arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.o arch/arm/lib/lib.a -Map u-boot-spl.map -o u-boot-spl) objcopy -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .hash -j .data -j .got -j .got.plt -j .u_boot_list -j .rel.dyn -j .dtb.init.rodata -j .efi_runtime -j .efi_runtime_rel -O binary spl/u-boot-spl spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin cp spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin ./tools/mksunxiboot --default-dt "sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime" spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl/sunxi-spl.bin /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman -d u-boot.dtb -O . -I . -I /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/board/sunxi spl/sunxi-spl.bin Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman", line 32, in <module> import control File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/control.py", line 15, in <module> import fdt File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/../dtoc/fdt.py", line 13, in <module> import libfdt File "tools/libfdt.py", line 612, in <module> FDT_ERR_TOODEEP = _libfdt.FDT_ERR_TOODEEP AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'FDT_ERR_TOODEEP' make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/Makefile:1130: u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin] Error 1
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hey all,
It's release day and v2017.07-rc2 is out. I'm mostly happy with the size of the changes here and I did remember to sync the defconfigs prior to tagging.
If anyone has critical fixes I've missed or some Kconfig migrations (that I can prove out as correct), please speak up.
Things look on track for -rc3 on July 3rd and release on July 10th. Thanks all!
I'm seeing failures/regression in this cycle (both RC1 and RC2) building a lot of the boards, I suspect this is a difference between using upstream (with python support patches) dtc vs the in-tree one. We use the upstream one to ensure we get consistency across all dtc consumers so it would be nice to have the same functionality as prior releases.
Peter
gcc -Wp,-MD,spl/drivers/mmc/.sunxi_mmc.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/7/include -Iinclude -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/include -include /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include/linux/kconfig.h -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/spl/drivers/mmc -Ispl/drivers/mmc -D__KERNEL__ -D__UBOOT__ -DCONFIG_SPL_BUILD -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-format-security -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -Os -fno-stack-protector -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -g -fstack-usage -Wno-format-nonliteral -Werror=date-time -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -D__ARM__ -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-unaligned-access -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -ffixed-r9 -msoft-float -pipe -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/include -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -c -o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/serial.o spl/drivers/serial/serial_ns16550.o spl/drivers/serial/ns16550.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc_legacy.o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/built-in.o spl/drivers/i2c/built-in.o spl/drivers/gpio/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/pmic/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/regulator/built-in.o spl/drivers/block/built-in.o (cd spl && ld.bfd -T u-boot-spl.lds --gc-sections -Bstatic --gc-sections --no-dynamic-linker -Ttext 0x60 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.o --start-group arch/arm/mach-sunxi/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/armv7/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/built-in.o arch/arm/lib/built-in.o board/sunxi/built-in.o common/spl/built-in.o common/init/built-in.o common/built-in.o cmd/built-in.o lib/built-in.o disk/built-in.o drivers/built-in.o dts/built-in.o fs/built-in.o --end-group arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.o arch/arm/lib/lib.a -Map u-boot-spl.map -o u-boot-spl) objcopy -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .hash -j .data -j .got -j .got.plt -j .u_boot_list -j .rel.dyn -j .dtb.init.rodata -j .efi_runtime -j .efi_runtime_rel -O binary spl/u-boot-spl spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin cp spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin ./tools/mksunxiboot --default-dt "sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime" spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl/sunxi-spl.bin /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman -d u-boot.dtb -O . -I . -I /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/board/sunxi spl/sunxi-spl.bin Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman", line 32, in <module> import control File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/control.py", line 15, in <module> import fdt File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/../dtoc/fdt.py", line 13, in <module> import libfdt File "tools/libfdt.py", line 612, in <module> FDT_ERR_TOODEEP = _libfdt.FDT_ERR_TOODEEP AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'FDT_ERR_TOODEEP' make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/Makefile:1130: u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin] Error 1
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
Hi,
On 20 June 2017 at 05:19, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hey all,
It's release day and v2017.07-rc2 is out. I'm mostly happy with the size of the changes here and I did remember to sync the defconfigs prior to tagging.
If anyone has critical fixes I've missed or some Kconfig migrations (that I can prove out as correct), please speak up.
Things look on track for -rc3 on July 3rd and release on July 10th. Thanks all!
I'm seeing failures/regression in this cycle (both RC1 and RC2) building a lot of the boards, I suspect this is a difference between using upstream (with python support patches) dtc vs the in-tree one. We use the upstream one to ensure we get consistency across all dtc consumers so it would be nice to have the same functionality as prior releases.
Peter
gcc -Wp,-MD,spl/drivers/mmc/.sunxi_mmc.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/7/include -Iinclude -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/include -include /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include/linux/kconfig.h -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/spl/drivers/mmc -Ispl/drivers/mmc -D__KERNEL__ -D__UBOOT__ -DCONFIG_SPL_BUILD -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-format-security -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -Os -fno-stack-protector -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -g -fstack-usage -Wno-format-nonliteral -Werror=date-time -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -D__ARM__ -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-unaligned-access -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -ffixed-r9 -msoft-float -pipe -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/include -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -c -o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/serial.o spl/drivers/serial/serial_ns16550.o spl/drivers/serial/ns16550.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc_legacy.o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/built-in.o spl/drivers/i2c/built-in.o spl/drivers/gpio/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/pmic/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/regulator/built-in.o spl/drivers/block/built-in.o (cd spl && ld.bfd -T u-boot-spl.lds --gc-sections -Bstatic --gc-sections --no-dynamic-linker -Ttext 0x60 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.o --start-group arch/arm/mach-sunxi/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/armv7/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/built-in.o arch/arm/lib/built-in.o board/sunxi/built-in.o common/spl/built-in.o common/init/built-in.o common/built-in.o cmd/built-in.o lib/built-in.o disk/built-in.o drivers/built-in.o dts/built-in.o fs/built-in.o --end-group arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.o arch/arm/lib/lib.a -Map u-boot-spl.map -o u-boot-spl) objcopy -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .hash -j .data -j .got -j .got.plt -j .u_boot_list -j .rel.dyn -j .dtb.init.rodata -j .efi_runtime -j .efi_runtime_rel -O binary spl/u-boot-spl spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin cp spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin ./tools/mksunxiboot --default-dt "sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime" spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl/sunxi-spl.bin /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman -d u-boot.dtb -O . -I . -I /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/board/sunxi spl/sunxi-spl.bin Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman", line 32, in <module> import control File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/control.py", line 15, in <module> import fdt File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/../dtoc/fdt.py", line 13, in <module> import libfdt File "tools/libfdt.py", line 612, in <module> FDT_ERR_TOODEEP = _libfdt.FDT_ERR_TOODEEP AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'FDT_ERR_TOODEEP' make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/Makefile:1130: u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin] Error 1
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
-- Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
Regards, Simon
On 20 June 2017 at 05:19, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hey all,
It's release day and v2017.07-rc2 is out. I'm mostly happy with the size of the changes here and I did remember to sync the defconfigs prior to tagging.
If anyone has critical fixes I've missed or some Kconfig migrations (that I can prove out as correct), please speak up.
Things look on track for -rc3 on July 3rd and release on July 10th. Thanks all!
I'm seeing failures/regression in this cycle (both RC1 and RC2) building a lot of the boards, I suspect this is a difference between using upstream (with python support patches) dtc vs the in-tree one. We use the upstream one to ensure we get consistency across all dtc consumers so it would be nice to have the same functionality as prior releases.
Peter
gcc -Wp,-MD,spl/drivers/mmc/.sunxi_mmc.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/7/include -Iinclude -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/include -include /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include/linux/kconfig.h -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/spl/drivers/mmc -Ispl/drivers/mmc -D__KERNEL__ -D__UBOOT__ -DCONFIG_SPL_BUILD -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-format-security -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -Os -fno-stack-protector -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -g -fstack-usage -Wno-format-nonliteral -Werror=date-time -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -D__ARM__ -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-unaligned-access -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -ffixed-r9 -msoft-float -pipe -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/include -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -c -o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/serial.o spl/drivers/serial/serial_ns16550.o spl/drivers/serial/ns16550.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc_legacy.o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/built-in.o spl/drivers/i2c/built-in.o spl/drivers/gpio/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/pmic/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/regulator/built-in.o spl/drivers/block/built-in.o (cd spl && ld.bfd -T u-boot-spl.lds --gc-sections -Bstatic --gc-sections --no-dynamic-linker -Ttext 0x60 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.o --start-group arch/arm/mach-sunxi/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/armv7/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/built-in.o arch/arm/lib/built-in.o board/sunxi/built-in.o common/spl/built-in.o common/init/built-in.o common/built-in.o cmd/built-in.o lib/built-in.o disk/built-in.o drivers/built-in.o dts/built-in.o fs/built-in.o --end-group arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.o arch/arm/lib/lib.a -Map u-boot-spl.map -o u-boot-spl) objcopy -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .hash -j .data -j .got -j .got.plt -j .u_boot_list -j .rel.dyn -j .dtb.init.rodata -j .efi_runtime -j .efi_runtime_rel -O binary spl/u-boot-spl spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin cp spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin ./tools/mksunxiboot --default-dt "sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime" spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl/sunxi-spl.bin /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman -d u-boot.dtb -O . -I . -I /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/board/sunxi spl/sunxi-spl.bin Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman", line 32, in <module> import control File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/control.py", line 15, in <module> import fdt File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/../dtoc/fdt.py", line 13, in <module> import libfdt File "tools/libfdt.py", line 612, in <module> FDT_ERR_TOODEEP = _libfdt.FDT_ERR_TOODEEP AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'FDT_ERR_TOODEEP' make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/Makefile:1130: u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin] Error 1
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
-- Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
Peter
Hi Peter,
On 20 June 2017 at 17:02, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2017 at 05:19, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hey all,
It's release day and v2017.07-rc2 is out. I'm mostly happy with the size of the changes here and I did remember to sync the defconfigs prior to tagging.
If anyone has critical fixes I've missed or some Kconfig migrations (that I can prove out as correct), please speak up.
Things look on track for -rc3 on July 3rd and release on July 10th. Thanks all!
I'm seeing failures/regression in this cycle (both RC1 and RC2) building a lot of the boards, I suspect this is a difference between using upstream (with python support patches) dtc vs the in-tree one. We use the upstream one to ensure we get consistency across all dtc consumers so it would be nice to have the same functionality as prior releases.
Peter
gcc -Wp,-MD,spl/drivers/mmc/.sunxi_mmc.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/7/include -Iinclude -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/include -include /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/include/linux/kconfig.h -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/spl/drivers/mmc -Ispl/drivers/mmc -D__KERNEL__ -D__UBOOT__ -DCONFIG_SPL_BUILD -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-format-security -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -Os -fno-stack-protector -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -g -fstack-usage -Wno-format-nonliteral -Werror=date-time -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -D__ARM__ -Wa,-mimplicit-it=always -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-unaligned-access -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -ffixed-r9 -msoft-float -pipe -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/include -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(sunxi_mmc)" -c -o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/serial.o spl/drivers/serial/serial_ns16550.o spl/drivers/serial/ns16550.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc.o spl/drivers/mmc/mmc_legacy.o spl/drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.o ld.bfd -r -o spl/drivers/built-in.o spl/drivers/i2c/built-in.o spl/drivers/gpio/built-in.o spl/drivers/mmc/built-in.o spl/drivers/serial/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/pmic/built-in.o spl/drivers/power/regulator/built-in.o spl/drivers/block/built-in.o (cd spl && ld.bfd -T u-boot-spl.lds --gc-sections -Bstatic --gc-sections --no-dynamic-linker -Ttext 0x60 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.o --start-group arch/arm/mach-sunxi/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/armv7/built-in.o arch/arm/cpu/built-in.o arch/arm/lib/built-in.o board/sunxi/built-in.o common/spl/built-in.o common/init/built-in.o common/built-in.o cmd/built-in.o lib/built-in.o disk/built-in.o drivers/built-in.o dts/built-in.o fs/built-in.o --end-group arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.o arch/arm/lib/lib.a -Map u-boot-spl.map -o u-boot-spl) objcopy -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .hash -j .data -j .got -j .got.plt -j .u_boot_list -j .rel.dyn -j .dtb.init.rodata -j .efi_runtime -j .efi_runtime_rel -O binary spl/u-boot-spl spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin cp spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin ./tools/mksunxiboot --default-dt "sun4i-a10-olinuxino-lime" spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl/sunxi-spl.bin /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman -d u-boot.dtb -O . -I . -I /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/board/sunxi spl/sunxi-spl.bin Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/binman", line 32, in <module> import control File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/control.py", line 15, in <module> import fdt File "/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/tools/binman/../dtoc/fdt.py", line 13, in <module> import libfdt File "tools/libfdt.py", line 612, in <module> FDT_ERR_TOODEEP = _libfdt.FDT_ERR_TOODEEP AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'FDT_ERR_TOODEEP' make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc2/Makefile:1130: u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin] Error 1
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
-- Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
Regards, Simon
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
-- Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
Peter
Hi Peter,
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
-- Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Regards, Simon
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks!
-- Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! > > -- > Tom
My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone else reported this too.
We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Peter
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >> >> -- >> Tom > > My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone > else reported this too. > > We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >>> >>> -- >>> Tom >> >> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >> else reported this too. >> >> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. > > No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a > related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I > would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork > of upstream like we use to.
OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered the energy.
This particular error could probably be worked around in the short term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tom >>> >>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >>> else reported this too. >>> >>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. >> >> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a >> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I >> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork >> of upstream like we use to. > > OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up > _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that > seems like a bad idea at the best of times. > > Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in > U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back > but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered > the energy. > > This particular error could probably be worked around in the short > term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this > sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the > other, not a mixture of the two
I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again, yes? If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them and get on the same page.
Hi,
On 9 July 2017 at 06:49, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tom >>>> >>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >>>> else reported this too. >>>> >>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. >>> >>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a >>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I >>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork >>> of upstream like we use to. >> >> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up >> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that >> seems like a bad idea at the best of times. >> >> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in >> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back >> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered >> the energy. >> >> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short >> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this >> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the >> other, not a mixture of the two > > I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where > something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or > vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they > could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and > from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug > and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to > magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again, yes? If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them and get on the same page.
It would be easy enough to drop the new error. I think that would fix the current problem. I synced libfdt after the Python library was applied upstream, so it may be possible to mix and match dtc now.
Re fdtgrep I did send fdtgrep patches to the list a long time ago but it did not go anywhere. For v3 there was a long delay and then this comment:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-compiler/msg00108.html
I have been meaning to try again with something smaller as I think it is a useful tool.
Regards, Simon
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 12:38:19PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 9 July 2017 at 06:49, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
> On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tom >>>>> >>>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >>>>> else reported this too. >>>>> >>>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. >>>> >>>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a >>>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I >>>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork >>>> of upstream like we use to. >>> >>> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up >>> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that >>> seems like a bad idea at the best of times. >>> >>> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in >>> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back >>> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered >>> the energy. >>> >>> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short >>> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this >>> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the >>> other, not a mixture of the two >> >> I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where >> something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or >> vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they >> could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and >> from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug >> and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to >> magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge. > > I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I > wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch > with the installation?
Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again, yes? If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them and get on the same page.
It would be easy enough to drop the new error. I think that would fix the current problem. I synced libfdt after the Python library was applied upstream, so it may be possible to mix and match dtc now.
Re fdtgrep I did send fdtgrep patches to the list a long time ago but it did not go anywhere. For v3 there was a long delay and then this comment:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-compiler/msg00108.html
I have been meaning to try again with something smaller as I think it is a useful tool.
OK, so I need a patch for the moment then please, thanks!
Hi Tom,
On 9 July 2017 at 16:36, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 12:38:19PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 9 July 2017 at 06:49, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: >> On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >>>>>> else reported this too. >>>>>> >>>>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. >>>>> >>>>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a >>>>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I >>>>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork >>>>> of upstream like we use to. >>>> >>>> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up >>>> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that >>>> seems like a bad idea at the best of times. >>>> >>>> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in >>>> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back >>>> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered >>>> the energy. >>>> >>>> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short >>>> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this >>>> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the >>>> other, not a mixture of the two >>> >>> I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where >>> something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or >>> vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they >>> could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and >>> from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug >>> and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to >>> magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge. >> >> I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I >> wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch >> with the installation? > > Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on > this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to > use external dtc or bundled?
So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
/builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line 18: dtc: command not found rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again, yes? If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them and get on the same page.
It would be easy enough to drop the new error. I think that would fix the current problem. I synced libfdt after the Python library was applied upstream, so it may be possible to mix and match dtc now.
Re fdtgrep I did send fdtgrep patches to the list a long time ago but it did not go anywhere. For v3 there was a long delay and then this comment:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-compiler/msg00108.html
I have been meaning to try again with something smaller as I think it is a useful tool.
OK, so I need a patch for the moment then please, thanks!
OK I just sent something that might help. Peter can you please test and advise?
Regards, Simon
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 9 July 2017 at 16:36, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 12:38:19PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 9 July 2017 at 06:49, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: > >> On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Tom > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone > >>>>>> else reported this too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a > >>>>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I > >>>>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork > >>>>> of upstream like we use to. > >>>> > >>>> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up > >>>> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that > >>>> seems like a bad idea at the best of times. > >>>> > >>>> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in > >>>> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back > >>>> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered > >>>> the energy. > >>>> > >>>> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short > >>>> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this > >>>> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the > >>>> other, not a mixture of the two > >>> > >>> I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where > >>> something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or > >>> vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they > >>> could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and > >>> from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug > >>> and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to > >>> magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge. > >> > >> I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I > >> wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch > >> with the installation? > > > > Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on > > this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to > > use external dtc or bundled? > > So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built > I get for a bunch of devices I get this: > > /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line > 18: dtc: command not found > rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount > *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer > > Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again, yes? If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them and get on the same page.
It would be easy enough to drop the new error. I think that would fix the current problem. I synced libfdt after the Python library was applied upstream, so it may be possible to mix and match dtc now.
Re fdtgrep I did send fdtgrep patches to the list a long time ago but it did not go anywhere. For v3 there was a long delay and then this comment:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-compiler/msg00108.html
I have been meaning to try again with something smaller as I think it is a useful tool.
OK, so I need a patch for the moment then please, thanks!
OK I just sent something that might help. Peter can you please test and advise?
Testing it now.
Peter
On 10 July 2017 at 02:26, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 9 July 2017 at 16:36, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 12:38:19PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 9 July 2017 at 06:49, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> Tom >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >> >>>>>> else reported this too. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a >> >>>>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I >> >>>>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork >> >>>>> of upstream like we use to. >> >>>> >> >>>> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up >> >>>> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that >> >>>> seems like a bad idea at the best of times. >> >>>> >> >>>> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in >> >>>> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back >> >>>> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered >> >>>> the energy. >> >>>> >> >>>> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short >> >>>> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this >> >>>> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the >> >>>> other, not a mixture of the two >> >>> >> >>> I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where >> >>> something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or >> >>> vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they >> >>> could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and >> >>> from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug >> >>> and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to >> >>> magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I >> >> wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch >> >> with the installation? >> > >> > Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on >> > this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to >> > use external dtc or bundled? >> >> So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built >> I get for a bunch of devices I get this: >> >> /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line >> 18: dtc: command not found >> rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount >> *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer >> >> Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA? > > Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets > modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09
The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again, yes? If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them and get on the same page.
It would be easy enough to drop the new error. I think that would fix the current problem. I synced libfdt after the Python library was applied upstream, so it may be possible to mix and match dtc now.
Re fdtgrep I did send fdtgrep patches to the list a long time ago but it did not go anywhere. For v3 there was a long delay and then this comment:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-compiler/msg00108.html
I have been meaning to try again with something smaller as I think it is a useful tool.
OK, so I need a patch for the moment then please, thanks!
OK I just sent something that might help. Peter can you please test and advise?
Testing it now.
Just for reference this is:
Hi,
On mvebu_db-88f3720 I am seeing endless resets when doing "scsi scan" or "scan reset" (SATA). I am chain-loading U-Boot from the vendor U-Boot.
It seems the latest version working was v2017.01, v2017.03 is failing. Haven't had time to bisect between releases yet.
Regards, Andreas
Hi Andreas,
On 23 June 2017 at 10:19, Andreas Färber afaerber@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On mvebu_db-88f3720 I am seeing endless resets when doing "scsi scan" or "scan reset" (SATA). I am chain-loading U-Boot from the vendor U-Boot.
It seems the latest version working was v2017.01, v2017.03 is failing. Haven't had time to bisect between releases yet.
I don't have one of those boards, but it might be worth testing again u-boot-dm/master or even u-boot-dm/ata2-working. If not then diagnosis or bisect might help figure out what is going on.
Regards, Simon
participants (4)
-
Andreas Färber -
Peter Robinson -
Simon Glass -
Tom Rini