On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Agner <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-12-03 10:49, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Stefan Agner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2015-12-03 10:28, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stefan Agner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-12-03 10:17, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>>>> I prefer SoC family as it makes easier for end customers to customized >>>>>> it without need to override the compatibility set in a bbappend. As >>>>>> this provides a SoM it is common it ends being used in a custom >>>>>> carrier board and eventually a new machine file in a customer layer >>>>>> can reuse the recipe. >>>>> >>>>> This is a good point, so e.g. if somebody would need to alter the >>>>> machine and would create a machine like apalis-imx6-mycarrier. We >>>>> actually would need another inheritance like SoC, for boards/carrier >>>>> boards... >>>> >>>> Yes but this can be add on the machine itself. The compatibile would >>>> demand a bbappend usually. >>> >>> How can this be added? By using the module name "apalis-imx6" as >>> SOC_FAMILY? >>> >>> In that case, a COMPATIBLE on module level would be good enough (e.g. as >>> it is now, just apalis/colibri-imx6 would be the module level). >> >> Yes; so it is added to the MACHINEOVERRIDES and ends being used as >> fallback. This is done for Wandboard in the past and I think is still >> used for OLinuxIno boards. >> > > I see. > >>> However, so far customization needs on machine level hasn't really come >>> up so far. Customers typically use our default machines, and customize >>> the image by other means... >> >> Yes but I see no problem in making it easier for end-users, do you? > > It would be a big change, since all machines are now called according to > the module name. I guess you can't use the same name of a SOC level and > a machine... Hence we would have to rename all machines... taking care > of Documentation, etc... > > I guess we need to discuss this internally and look at things a little > closer to understand the implications. Maybe we can postpone such a > change?
Yes however please send the COMPATIBLE_MACHINES set for the SoC family for now then. It helps and goes to the right direction. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
