Core-image-sato for i.MX35PDK

[Arttu]

Hi,

 

I have been able to build core-image-minimal to i.MX35PDK with Yocto but when I try to build core-image-sato I'll get following errors.

 

ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'firmware-imx-sdma-imx35' (but /home/arttu/Yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-base.bb RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it)
NOTE: Runtime target 'firmware-imx-sdma-imx35' is unbuildable, removing...
Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['firmware-imx-sdma-imx35']
NOTE: Runtime target 'packagegroup-base-extended' is unbuildable, removing...
Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['packagegroup-base-extended', 'firmware-imx-sdma-imx35']
ERROR: Required build target 'core-image-sato' has no buildable providers.
Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['core-image-sato', 'packagegroup-base-extended', 'firmware-imx-sdma-imx35']

 

Why am I getting these errors? Is core-image-sato supported for i.MX35PDK?

 

Br,

Arttu

[Daiane Angolini]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Arttu <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why am I getting these errors? Is core-image-sato supported for i.MX35PDK?

core-image-sato is supported for any board. I believe the image is
independent of machine.

If you look at:
https://github.com/Freescale/meta-fsl-arm/blob/master/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc

you can see that a firmware is needed for any board, but, for those
board without a firmware it will be blank/empty.

For imx35, there is no firmware package on meta-fsl-arm (see available
firmaware here:
https://github.com/Freescale/meta-fsl-arm/tree/master/recipes-bsp/firmware-imx).
And I would say to you to include the package for your board, but I
don't know by heart if imx35 needs some firmware. By firmware recipe
it looks like imx35 needs sdma firmware.

I think core-image-minimal will not include EXTRA_RECOMMENDS, only
RDEPENDES, that's why you did not see the same error for minimal
image. But I think you will face the same error for core-image-base


Daiane

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Daiane Angolini <daian...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Arttu <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why am I getting these errors? Is core-image-sato supported for i.MX35PDK?

core-image-sato is supported for any board. I believe the image is
independent of machine.

It ought to be.

 

If you look at:
https://github.com/Freescale/meta-fsl-arm/blob/master/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc

you can see that a firmware is needed for any board, but, for those
board without a firmware it will be blank/empty.

For imx35, there is no firmware package on meta-fsl-arm (see available
firmaware here:
https://github.com/Freescale/meta-fsl-arm/tree/master/recipes-bsp/firmware-imx).
And I would say to you to include the package for your board, but I
don't know by heart if imx35 needs some firmware. By firmware recipe
it looks like imx35 needs sdma firmware.

The firmare-imx source from 11.09 has the imx35 binaries and it seems it is generic (as it provides the full set of binaries). So it can be changed to allarch and drop the compatible machine restriction.

To commit it someone needs to test (and maybe compare) the firmware.

 

I think core-image-minimal will not include EXTRA_RECOMMENDS, only
RDEPENDES, that's why you did not see the same error for minimal
image. But I think you will face the same error for core-image-base

Yes you are correct.

Regards, 

 

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

[Fabio Estevam]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote:

> The firmare-imx source from 11.09 has the imx35 binaries and it seems it is
> generic (as it provides the full set of binaries). So it can be changed to
> allarch and drop the compatible machine restriction.
>
> To commit it someone needs to test (and maybe compare) the firmware.

mx35 uses 3.x kernel and the utility to generate the SDMA firmware is
available at:
http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=imx/sdma-firmware.git;a=summary

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

[Otavio Salvador]

Hum I see but I have some questions:

What about the other firmwares provided by firmware-imx?

Is the generated firmware compatible with FSL kernel? or it is only compatible with mainline kernel?

What about the license of those binary blobs? The repository seems to not make it clear.

Regards,

 

[Fabio Estevam]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote:

> Hum I see but I have some questions:
>
> What about the other firmwares provided by firmware-imx?

firmware-imx should be used with FSL kernel. This SDMA tool I pointed
tool should be only used with mainline kernel.

> Is the generated firmware compatible with FSL kernel? or it is only
> compatible with mainline kernel?

Only with mainline kernel.

> What about the license of those binary blobs? The repository seems to not
> make it clear.

The end goal is to put the firmwares into the official linux-firmware
git tree. When we get into this point there will also be a license
file for the firmwares.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Fabio Estevam <fest...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote:

> Hum I see but I have some questions:
>
> What about the other firmwares provided by firmware-imx?

firmware-imx should be used with FSL kernel. This SDMA tool I pointed
tool should be only used with mainline kernel.

I see. For the case of iMX35 sdma tool provides the full set of firmware need however for other SoC this seems to not be the case. In iMX5 we have other firmware need. Are those provided by other tools?

 

> Is the generated firmware compatible with FSL kernel? or it is only
> compatible with mainline kernel?

Only with mainline kernel.

I see.

 

> What about the license of those binary blobs? The repository seems to not
> make it clear.

The end goal is to put the firmwares into the official linux-firmware
git tree. When we get into this point there will also be a license
file for the firmwares.

If we pick the sdma tool now we'll be providing a binary with unkown license and this is unacceptable for products.

Would be possible for you to check the license of those files and we update the repository to have it? this way we can use it.

Regards,

[Fabio Estevam]

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote:

> I see. For the case of iMX35 sdma tool provides the full set of firmware
> need however for other SoC this seems to not be the case. In iMX5 we have
> other firmware need. Are those provided by other tools?

Depending om the SoC we have two firmwares: for SDMA and VPU.

The way to provide the firmware varies from FSL BSP version.

In the mainline kernel the correct way is to provide it in
linux-firmware git tree.

> If we pick the sdma tool now we'll be providing a binary with unkown license
> and this is unacceptable for products.
>
> Would be possible for you to check the license of those files and we update
> the repository to have it? this way we can use it.

Let's wait until the firmwares get available at linux-firmware. We
should have it there soon.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

[Otavio Salvador]

I was pondering today about the difference between the firmware-imx and this repository. Are the firmware the same?

It seems mainline might look for different filenames (which we can workaround) so I'd like to know if the content of the file are compatible or not. Do you know?