Re: [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH v3 0/4] Backport ti-core-initramfs to scarthgap for j722s NFS boot

On 11/08/26 20:06, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
>
>
> On 8/11/2026 9:12 AM, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/7/2026 4:14 AM, Moteen Shah wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/08/26 13:12, PRC Automation wrote:
>>>> meta-ti / na / 20260807073837.1394655-1-m-shah
>>>>
>>>> PRC Results: FAIL
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>    check-yocto-patches: PASS
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> Patches
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> WARN - [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH v3 2/4] k3: fix weak 
>>>> IMAGE_BOOT_FILES assignment
>>>>      WARN: Revised patch missing a comment. (REVISION-1)
>>>>          patch
>>>>      For details on the above errors/warnings visit: 
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/wiki/40887
>>>> WARN - [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH v3 3/4] 
>>>> initramfs-module-netsetup: add recipe for DHCP before NFS root mount
>>>>      WARN: Revised patch missing a comment. (REVISION-1)
>>>>          patch
>>>>      For details on the above errors/warnings visit: 
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/wiki/40887
>>>> WARN - [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH v3 4/4] 
>>>> initramfs-module-netsetup: add j722s CPSW proxy-client kernel modules
>>>>      WARN: Revised patch missing a comment. (REVISION-1)
>>>>          patch
>>>>      For details on the above errors/warnings visit: 
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/wiki/40887
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>    apply-yocto-patch: PASS
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> scarthgap
>>>> =====================
>>>> Summary:
>>>> - Patch Series: [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH v3 0/4] Backport 
>>>> ti-core-initramfs to scarthgap for j722s NFS boot
>>>> - Submitter: From: Moteen Shah <[email protected]>
>>>> - Date: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 13:08:33 +0530
>>>> - Num Patches: 4
>>>> - Mailing List (public inbox) Commit SHA: 
>>>> 302eea507c00c061dfcbf75fea1e6f4d22c77b5a
>>>>
>>>> Applied to:
>>>> - Repository: lcpd-prc-meta-ti
>>>> - Base Branch: scarthgap-wip
>>>> - Commit Author: Denys Dmytriyenko (TI) <[email protected]>
>>>> - Commit Subject: meta-beagle: linux-bb.org: upgrade 6.12.43 -> 
>>>> 6.12.57
>>>> - Commit SHA: 7ff810824442c56ef59fa2d705d64a03ade5f5f7
>>>>
>>>> Patches
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> All patches applied
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>    check-yocto-repo: PASS
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> scarthgap
>>>> =====================
>>>> PASS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>    yocto-check-layers: FAIL
>>>> =========================================================
>>>> scarthgap - FAIL
>>>> =====================
>>>> ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES '${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager}' (but 
>>>> <build-dir>/sources/meta-ti/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb 
>>>> RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it)
>>>> ERROR: Required build target 'meta-world-pkgdata' has no buildable 
>>>> providers.
>>>
>>> I dont understand the failure fully, how can I reproduce it locally?
>>> @Ryan and @Denys any inputs?
>>>
>>
>> My initial thoughts are that that setup was done in oe-core master 
>> and wrynose and never backported to scarthgap.  So it does not exist.
>
> In looking a little further, this is likely just some goofiness with 
> yocto-check-layer and not having a distro when it runs.  Not sure why 
> this passes in master/wrynose but fails in scarthgap... I'll keep 
> looking at it.
>
>
>> Why are we trying to backport this to scarthgap anyway?  There was 
>> never an issue with j722s in scarthgap.  What has changed that this 
>> is now a requirement?


I will be sending out a meta-arago patch after this which will be 
pulling in the initramfs from meta-ti, all this will be based on 
scarthgap. Until SDK 11.02, the CPSW Proxy Client driver wasn't used for 
NFS. Starting with SDK 11.02, EthFw + CPSW Proxy Client driver in Linux 
were enabled. Since they conflict with AM65_CPSW_NUSS, only one of them 
can be enabled on a given boot. Hence the need for initramfs to allow 
NFS to boot in TISDK's. @Siddharth feel free to add on to the above 
understanding.

Regards,
Moteen

>>
>