genericarm64.conf: override poky-altcfg distro kernel version

To use latest stable kernel from oe-core. It has much more genericarm64
support than the old version selected by poky-altcfg distro.

genericarm64 machine basically only works well with systemd init with
udev already in initramfs and thus with poky-altcfg distro, not plain
poky distro.

This setting makes default release binaries for poky-altcfg distro
useful for genericarm64 machine and the many HW devices we want to
support.

Cc: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org>
---
 meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/genericarm64.conf | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

On Sat, 2025-11-29 at 15:39 +0200, Mikko Rapeli via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> To use latest stable kernel from oe-core. It has much more genericarm64
> support than the old version selected by poky-altcfg distro.
> 
> genericarm64 machine basically only works well with systemd init with
> udev already in initramfs and thus with poky-altcfg distro, not plain
> poky distro.
> 
> This setting makes default release binaries for poky-altcfg distro
> useful for genericarm64 machine and the many HW devices we want to
> support.
> 
> Cc: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org>
> ---
>  meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/genericarm64.conf | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

I have said no and I have explained why not. Sending it again doesn't
change that. We need to find a different solution.

Cheers,

Richard

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 11:36:27PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-11-29 at 15:39 +0200, Mikko Rapeli via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > To use latest stable kernel from oe-core. It has much more genericarm64
> > support than the old version selected by poky-altcfg distro.
> > 
> > genericarm64 machine basically only works well with systemd init with
> > udev already in initramfs and thus with poky-altcfg distro, not plain
> > poky distro.
> > 
> > This setting makes default release binaries for poky-altcfg distro
> > useful for genericarm64 machine and the many HW devices we want to
> > support.
> > 
> > Cc: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > �meta-yocto-bsp/conf/machine/genericarm64.conf | 3 +++
> > �1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> I have said no and I have explained why not. Sending it again doesn't
> change that. We need to find a different solution.

This was another implementation, an override on machine config side.

The kernel version needs to be agreed by both distro and machine configs
and we have a disagreement here.

What kind of alternatives or different solutions do we have?
Another build variant in AB?

For genericarm64 machine, the current setup is not useful with systemd and old
kernel version. Users must recompile or wait until all fixes to kernel configs
are in the oldest available kernel in tree.

Cheers,

-Mikko

On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 at 08:00, Mikko Rapeli via lists.yoctoproject.org
<mikko.rapeli=linaro.org@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:

> What kind of alternatives or different solutions do we have?
> Another build variant in AB?

Add the needed fixes to poky and the components used in it so that
genericarm64 does not de facto require systemd? I find that deeply
problematic to begin with.

Alex

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 11:47:46AM +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 at 08:00, Mikko Rapeli via lists.yoctoproject.org
> <mikko.rapeli=linaro.org@lists.yoctoproject.org> wrote:
> 
> > What kind of alternatives or different solutions do we have?
> > Another build variant in AB?
> 
> Add the needed fixes to poky and the components used in it so that
> genericarm64 does not de facto require systemd? I find that deeply
> problematic to begin with.

We have a working configuration and we have plenty of broken ones.

I'm trying to serve users who would like to see the known
working configuration of systemd and latest stable kernel as output
from the Yocto Project. If something in that working configuration
breaks, then its up to me as co-maintainer of genericarm64 to fix it.

I'm sorry that this does not convince you. I've tried to help with
U-Boot, kernel etc genericarm64 BSP updates and IMO done quite a bit of
development work in linux-yocto kernel to get it working on more HW.

Sounds like building this genericarm64 "known good config" should
move to outside of oe-core and meta-yocto, maybe meta-arm then.

Cheers,

-Mikko

On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 at 12:28, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@linaro.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to serve users who would like to see the known
> working configuration of systemd and latest stable kernel as output
> from the Yocto Project. If something in that working configuration
> breaks, then its up to me as co-maintainer of genericarm64 to fix it.
>
> I'm sorry that this does not convince you. I've tried to help with
> U-Boot, kernel etc genericarm64 BSP updates and IMO done quite a bit of
> development work in linux-yocto kernel to get it working on more HW.
>
> Sounds like building this genericarm64 "known good config" should
> move to outside of oe-core and meta-yocto, maybe meta-arm then.

Let me take a moment to explain why I am not convinced.

"I have users who are paying me to do X" is not an argument that can
ever work well with me personally. What would work much better is "X
is a good thing for the Yocto Project in the long run, and open source
ecosystem in general". And you can't possibly make that argument when
X is "let's be complicit in (or actively work towards!) systemd
creeping in as a hard requirement to run Linux".

Alex