I need to add the MCP7941X RTC linux kernel driver to custom HW with a TMS320DM368 DaVinci processor running embedded-linux 2.6. It seems this can be accomplished by adding one or more patches to the DS1307 RTC driver. As a linux newbie I've not added a patch to the kernel before but I am guessing what I need to do is make a plain text file from this, add the file to kernel/patches, and add a line to install the patch to the series file. I am also concerned about the following notes in this link:
patch depends on:
rtc: ds1307: comment and format cleanup 38f0a1072f
rtc: ds1307: simplify irq setup code f5af1f6ffe
rtc: ds1307: refactor chip_desc table c0920a32b7
Do these notes mean that I need to find and also add these patches to kernel/patches or should I be able to find a single latest and greatest patch that includes the MCP7941X?
Welcome to the sometimes frustrating but always challenging world of Linux kernel patch juggling! Unless you find someone who's already done what you're trying to do, you're pretty much on your own to apply these patches and test the results. Yes, those lines likely indicate patches that must be applied before the patch in question will apply cleanly, but it's easy enough to figure it out.
You didn't say where you got your kernel or what it is based on, nor how you are building it. But if you're just building a 2.6 kernel manually from the command line, I don't think patches are applied automatically. But patches are easy enough to apply and test out. Something like:
$ cd top/level/kernel/dir
$ patch -p1 < your.patch
Note that often you can just feed patch the e-mail without having to format anything. Just try it. patch is smart enough to find the actual formatted patch within the e-mail.
You can use the quilt tool to apply patches to a query. The man page and web searches should make that easy.
Unfortunately, as I said, unless you happen to find someone who already has done that, you won't know the results until you try it and test it. That's the nature of open source.
Finally, in case you don't speak 'git', those 10-digit hex numbers after those patches in the dependency list above refer to git "commits" also called "hashes". Of course, they refer to some specific git kernel repository that isn't identified in your e-mail. Again, the man pages for git and the internet should guide you there.
And as sawdust pointed out, if you don't already have the driver configured into your kernel, you might need to add it using 'make menuconfig' in the kernel configuration. And if the driver isn't there, well, that's another story altogether, and my book "Embedded Linux Primer" has a section detailing how to add config snippets to the kernel build system to add new drivers that aren't already present in your kernel tree.
Good luck.
Related
I'm trying to build my own yocto_meta-layer based on the imx6ulevk and in ./meta-fsl-bsp-release/imx/meta-sdk/conf/distro/include/fsl-imx-preferred-env.inc I found something weird:
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel_mx6ul = "linux-imx"
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel_mx6sll = "linux-imx"
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel_mx7 = "linux-imx"
So i was wondering what does the last *_word (i.e. PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel_*) means?
a) Does it is a way to set a virtual/kernel parser depending on the machine?
b) If [a] is yes, how do i know which name to put? or what part of the machine_name.conf i need to choose?
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_<recipe-name>_<machine-name> means this variable applies to mentioned recipe AND the respective MACHINE only. This is a common sighting in distro layers. In this particular case, the freescale layer is telling bitbake which Linux kernel recipe to choose depending on the MACHINE you either set in local.conf or pass via command line. More info here.
So the answer to a) is yes.
The answer to b) is that you should not bother with changing the PREFERRED_PROVIDER for the Linux kernel unless you really know what you're doing (i.e, writing a kernel recipe from scratch). Even if you have a custom board you're unlikely to change the virtual/kernel provider. You'd likely want to follow the BSP maintainer's recommendation. What you need to do is set a proper MACHINE, and the bitbake will take care of the rest.
For example if your MACHINE is mx6ul, invoking bitbake virtual/kernel is the same as bitbake linux-imx. The former is best practice, as you call that in Yocto regardless of the machine.
I'm afraid reading the docs is the best way to fully grasp Yocto. The good thing is that it's documented really well. You'd probably want to start from the development manual and the bitbake link above, before diving into the mega manual.
The suffix underscore '_' followed by a string means that the variable, PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel in this case is "overridden". bitbake will use this assignment when the OVERRIDES variable contains that particular string, such as "imx6ul".
Many times, if not all, the SoC architecture is set in the MACHINEOVERRIDES variable in the machine.conf, to define what the SoC is on the board. That consequently gets assigned to OVERRIDES in some yocto/bitbake recipe elsewhere.
The Conditional Syntax (Overrides) section in the bitbake manual [1] specifically talks about how this affects the variable expansion.
a.) If we were being strict with the terminology used by Yocto, it would be no. The "machine" per-se correlates to a board, such as "imx6ulevk". The overrides you have there more generally pertain to an SoC architecture (a chip). You may have many boards running the imx6ul for example. In this case it would pertain to all "machines" running that particular SoC (as defined by your machine in MACHINEOVERRIDES).
b.) Anything appearing in the colon delimited OVERRIDES variable is fair game. You can use the machine name because Yocto does in fact append the MACHINE name to it as well. But it doesn't really make sense to do that because you have a dedication machine.conf file for you to make a hard definition such as PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "something" if you really want a machine/board specific kernel selection. NXP did this in their distro layer to apply to many machines (aka boards) all at once.
Hint: to see what these variables expand out to, run bitbake -e virtual/kernel
These overrides are one of the most powerful features of bitbake. For example if you want to override the source revision of you linux-imx kernel build you can put something like SRCREV_pn-linux-imx = "something" in your local.conf. See if you can grep the recipe sources to find out how this works!
References:
[1] https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.6/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual.html#conditional-syntax-overrides
I have created a model in Anylogic 8.3. Now I want to open this model on a different computer that contains an older version, Anylogic 8.2.3. This, however, does not work, as I am prompted with the fact that the model is created in a newer Anylogic version.
Is there a way to circumvent this issue?
I am not a system admin on the computer with the older Anylogic, nor does our license cover updating to a newer version of Anylogic (expired in december 2018).
You can easily do that by opening the .alp file of your model with Notepad or a similar text editor. Then:
Get your actual AnyLogic build version (open AnyLogic, click "Help" and then "About". You can find your build-version as in the image below
replace AnyLogicVersion and AlpVersion with your required values, e.g. something like AnyLogicVersion="8.2.3.xxxxxxxx" and AlpVersion="8.2.3"
save the file and open with AnyLogic 8.2.3
(Note that if you want to open a model in AnyLogic 7 that was developed in AnyLogic 8, you would also need to remove the entire <RunConfiguration> section. But this is not relevant in your case.)
I think it's only possible to go back to an earlier AnyLogicVersion by hacking the .alp if the AlpVersion is the same, because it denotes the structure of the XML. I don't have an 8.4 file handy, but I have, for example, an 8.5.1 and an 8.2.4, and the AlpVersion is 8.4.9 for AnyLogicVersion 8.5.1, but 8.0.4 for AnyLogicVersion 8.2.4.
If the XML structure is different, the newer version of AnyLogic will likely be unable to load the file. Looking at the two examples of essentially the same model that I've detailed above, there are readily apparent structural differences in the ActiveObjectClass, for example. If there are not too many structural differences, you could try replicating them. I've succeeded in doing that manually at least once, that I can recall.
There are a variety of online tools that allow you to compare the XML schemas of two XML documents, from which you will be able to judge whether a manual hack is feasible.
I have a custom machine layer based on https://github.com/jumpnow/meta-wandboard.
I've upgraded the kernel to 4.8.6 and want to add X11 to the image.
I'm modifying to image recipe (console-image.bb).
Since wandboard is based on i.MX6, I want to include the xf86-video-imxfb-vivante package from meta-fsl-arm.
However, it fails complaining about inability to build kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv. I believe that happens because xf86-video-imxfb-vivante DEPENDS on imx-gpu-viv which in turn RDEPENDS on kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv.
I realize that those dependencies have been created with meta-fsl-arm BSP and vanilla Poky distribution. But those things are way outdated for wandboard, hence I am using the custom machine layer with modern kernel.
The kernel is configured to include the Vivante DRM module and I really don't want the kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv package to be built.
Is there a way to exclude it from RDEPENDS? Can I somehow swear my health to the build system that I will take care of this specific run-time dependency myself?
I have tried blacklisting 'kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv' setting PNBLACKLIST[kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv] in my local.conf, but that's just a part of a solution. It helps avoid build failures, but the packaging process still fails.
IIUC you problem comes from these lines in img-gpu-viv recipe:
FILES_libgal-mx6 = "${libdir}/libGAL${SOLIBS} ${libdir}/libGAL_egl${SOLIBS}"
FILES_libgal-mx6-dev = "${libdir}/libGAL${SOLIBSDEV} ${includedir}/HAL"
RDEPENDS_libgal-mx6 += "kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv"
INSANE_SKIP_libgal-mx6 += "build-deps"
I would actually qualify this RDEPENDS as a bug, usually kernel module dependencies are specified as RRECOMMENDS because most modules can be compiled into the kernel thus making no separate package at all while still providing the functionality. But that's another issue.
There are several ways to fix this problem, the first general route is to tweak RDEPENDS for the package. It's just a bitbake variable, so you can either assign it some other value or remove some portion of it. In the first case it's going to look somewhat like this:
RDEPENDS_libgal-mx6 = ""
In the second one:
RDEPENDS_libgal-mx6_remove = "kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv"
Obviously, these two options have different implications for your present and future work. In general I would opt for the softer one which is the second, because it has less potential for breakage when you're to update meta-fsl-arm layer, which can change imx-gpu-viv recipe in any kind of way. But when you're overriding some more complex recipe with big lists in variables and you're modifying it heavily (not just removing a thing or two) it might be easier to maintain it with full hard assignment of variables.
Now there is also a question of where to do this variable mangling. The main option is .bbappend in your layer, that's what appends are made for, but you can also do this from your distro configuration (if you're maintaining your own distro it might be easier to have all these tweaks in one place, rather than sprayed into numerous appends) or from your local.conf (which is a nice place to quickly try it out, but probably not something to use in longer term). I usually use .bbappend.
But there is also a completely different approach to this problem, rather than fixing package dependencies you can also fix what some other package provides. If for example you have a kernel configured to have imx-gpu-viv module built right into the main zimage you can do
RPROVIDES_kernel-image += "kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv"
(also in .bbappend, distro configuration or local.conf) and that's it.
In any case your approach to fixing this problem should reflect the difference between your setup and recipe assumptions. If you do have the module, but in a different package, then go for RPROVIDES, if you have some other module providing the same functionality to libgal-mx6 package then fix libgal-mx6 dependencies (and it's better to fix them, meaning not only drop something you don't need, but also add things that are relevant for your setup).
I have a question related to V4L-DVB drivers. Following the
Building/Compiling the Latest V4L-DVB Source Code link, there are 3 ways to
compile. I am curious about the last approach (More "Manually
Intensive" Approach). It allows me to choose the components that I
wish to build and install using the "make menuconfig". Some of these components (i.e. "CONFIG_MEDIA_ATTACH") are used in pre-processor directives that define a function in one shape if defined, and a function in another if not defined (i.e.
dvb_attach, dvb_detach) in the resulting modules (i.e. dvb_core.ko)
that will be loaded by most of the DVB drivers. What happens if there are two
drivers (*.ko modules) on the same host machine, one that needs dvb_core.ko with
CONFIG_MEDIA_ATTACH defined and another that needs dvb_core.ko with
CONFIG_MEDIA_ATTACH undefined, is there a clean way to handle this?
What is also not clear to me is: Since the V4L compilation environment seems very customizable (by setting the .config file), if I develop a driver using V4L-DVB structures, there is a big chance that it has conflicts with other drivers since each driver has its own custom settings. Is my understanding correct?
Thanks!
Dave
Update: TL;DR there seems to be no built-in way to achieve this, so a custom task is an easy solution.
Capistrano provides facilities to share files and directories over all releases. This is convenient and provides even some safety on files that should not be easily changed (or must remain the same across releases), e.g. a database configuration file.
But when it comes to replace or just update one of these shared files, I end up doing it manually, directly on the target machine. I would like to improve on that, for instance by asking Capistrano to overwrite some or all shared files when deploying. A kind of --force flag with some granularity.
I am not aware of any such kind of facility, and failing so far in my search. Any pointer?
Thinking about it
One of the reason why this facility does not exist (except that I did not find it!) is that it may be harder than it looks. For example, let's assume we have a shared database configuration file, and we exclude it from version control for security reason (common practice). Current release relies on version 1 of the DB configuration. The next release requires version 2 of the DB configuration. If the deployment goes well, everything's good. It gets harder when rolling back after some error with the new release (e.g. a regression), as version 1 must then be available.
Such automation would be cool and convenient, but dangerous as well. Yet I have practical use cases at hand.
I created a template method to do this. For example, I could have a task like this:
task :create_database_yml do
on roles(:app, :db) do
within(shared_path) do
template "local/path/to/database.yml.erb",
"config/database.yml",
:mode => "600"
end
end
end
And then I have a database.yml.erb template that uses things like fetch(:database_password) to fill in appropriate values. You can use the ask method in Capistrano to prompt for these values so they are never committed.
The implementation of template can be very simple: you just need to read the file, pass it through ERB, and then use Capistrano's upload! to place the results on the server.
My version is a little more complicated than yours probably needs to be, but in case you are curious:
https://github.com/mattbrictson/capistrano-mb/blob/7600440ecd3331945d03e059368b75849857f1fb/lib/capistrano/mb/dsl.rb#L104
One approach is to use a system configuration tool like Chef or Puppet to deploy the configuration files distinctly from Capistrano.
Another approach is to create a custom task to do this: https://coderwall.com/p/wgs6gw/copy-local-files-to-remote-server-using-capistrano-3
I personally don't change on-server configs often enough or on enough servers yet to have tried to automate it. Crafting an scp command which copies the desired config file to all of the required servers has sufficed in the past.