On 04/08/10 18:21, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:59:30PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote: >> On 04/08/10 17:13, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:38PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 13:17 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: >>>>> FWIW, minimal is using MACHINE_CLASS since quite a while to >>>>> reduce the need for adding the same files over and over again, >>>>> this is being used e.g. for HTC msm7 series and OpenEZX series >>>>> (see conf/machine/include). >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps it's time to standardize something like that. >>>> Yeah. I certainly don't think we want a proliferation of such >>>> mechanisms. If minimal is already using MACHINE_CLASS then there would >>>> be some sense in trying to make use of the same thing. >>>> >>>> Failing that though, testing COMPATIBLE_MACHINE against MACHINE_CLASS >>>> probably is more desirable than adding a completely new variable (i.e. >>>> SOC_FAMILY) for that purpose. >>> Phil, >>> >>> Re: "adding a completely new variable" - SOC_FAMILY has been in use for >>> almost >>> a year now. I'm hearing about MACHINE_CLASS for the first time, although it >>> appears to be slightly older than SOC_FAMILY though. But it doesn't seem to >>> be >>> used anywhere besides in few machine configs and micro.conf. There are no >>> recipes actually using it, unlike SOC_FAMILY... >>> >>> I'm not saying one is better than the other (actually, unifying them would >>> be nice), I'm just saying it's too late to object adding SOC_FAMILY... >>> >> As the person who originally added MACHINE_CLASS to openmoko and the OE, >> then removed it from OE I can say it has different meaning that >> SOC_FAMILY. MACHINE_CLASS was to identify a range of machines that were >> 90% the same but had a few differences. It was used in a few recipes >> which were MACHINE_ARCH to make them use the same ARCH in these recipes >> to stop them being rebuilt when switching machines. >> >> The original use was om-gta01 and om-gta02 which had the same MACHINE_CLASS. > Graeme, > > Thanks for clarifying this! Do you still see a benefit in using > MACHINE_CLASS? > Why was it removed from OE? I don't see why it can't be used alongside > SOC_FAMILY... > I removed it as it was only used for the openmoko machines and outside of openmoko I didn't see the need for the extra maintenance work to save 10ms of build time. I was just not maintaining enough recipes that used it.
That doesn't mean that I'm against people re-introducing it if there is a real need. Graeme _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
