[Buildroot] BeagleBoneBlack Updates?

[Frank Hunleth]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Greg Beresford
<greg.beresford at zbdsolutions.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: buildroot-bounces at busybox.net [mailto:buildroot-
>> bounces at busybox.net] On Behalf Of Frank Hunleth
>> Sent: 16 September 2013 02:16
>> To: Thomas Petazzoni
>> Cc: buildroot
>> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] BeagleBoneBlack Updates?
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
>> <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Frank Hunleth,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:58:27 -0400, Frank Hunleth wrote:
>> > > It's been a while since there's been discussion on the bbb, and I
>> > > wanted to check on the current status. I've been sitting on some
>> > > patches that have been working for me for the past few months. Spenser
>> > > Gilliland had also posted a github reference to his patches a month or
>> > > so ago. As far as I can tell, the main difference is HDMI and graphics
>> > > acceleration are either working or close to working in his tree. I
>> > > don't use either feature.
>> > >
>> > > I don't mind making a pass to clean up what I have and submit it to
>> > > the list, but if work is going on with Spenser's or someone else's
>> > > then I'll hold off.
>> >
>> > I believe Spenser might be busy with the other OpenGL work, so I think
>> > you could probably take your work and his BBB work, and submit patches
>> > to the list. I'd really to see the BBB be an officially supported
>> > platform in Buildroot.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I just rebased to the upstream and was pleased to see the updated
>> Linaro compilers. The Beaglebone Debian work uses Linaro 4.8-2013.07,
>> and I had as a todo item to try to match up compilers when I had a
>> chance. Both Spenser and I were using EABI compilers (as opposed to an
>> EABIhf one like Debian.)
>>
>> I tried making the switch to EABIhf, but found out a that init won't
>> start due to not being able to load libc.so.6. I assumed that
>> somewhere I just had a compiler option different so that busybox was
>> being compiled with a slightly different ABI than what Linaro had done
>> with their version of libc. As far as I can tell with readelf, I have
>> both busybox and libc.so.6 reporting ABI 3.1.1 and listing:
>>
>> Attribute Section: aeabi
>> File Attributes
>>   Tag_CPU_name: "7-A"
>>   Tag_CPU_arch: v7
>>   Tag_CPU_arch_profile: Application
>>   Tag_ARM_ISA_use: Yes
>>   Tag_THUMB_ISA_use: Thumb-2
>>   Tag_FP_arch: VFPv3
>>   Tag_Advanced_SIMD_arch: NEONv1
>>   Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t: 4
>>   Tag_ABI_FP_rounding: Needed
>>   Tag_ABI_FP_denormal: Needed
>>   Tag_ABI_FP_exceptions: Needed
>>   Tag_ABI_FP_number_model: IEEE 754
>>   Tag_ABI_align_needed: 8-byte
>>   Tag_ABI_align_preserved: 8-byte, except leaf SP
>>   Tag_ABI_enum_size: int
>>   Tag_ABI_HardFP_use: SP and DP
>>   Tag_ABI_VFP_args: VFP registers
>>   Tag_CPU_unaligned_access: v6
>>
>> Right now, I'm not sure where to look for possible other differences.
>> CodeSourcery and the built-in toolchains work fine (albeit with EABI).
>> I was wondering if anyone else has run into issues with EABIhf to
>> might help me debug this.
>>
>
> This is because the new linaro toolchain is expecting to find libc in /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/ as reported in https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=6452.
>
> There's a patch to adapt toolchain/helpers.mk to the new linaro layout in the attachment to that bug, and I can say that the patch works for me, but I don't know if it would break anything else!
>

Thanks! That was the issue.

Frank