On 09:43 Tue 07 Sep , Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > add global OVERRIDES ${TARGET_SOC_FAMILY} and
> > ${TARGET_ARCH}_${TARGET_SOC_FAMILY}
> >
> For my part I would ask why you are renaming SOC_FAMILY to TARGET_SOC_FAMILY?
> Why not leave the name the way it is since others may be using it in
> overlays, etc?
to be consistant it's the TARGET SOC FAMILY not the host
as the ARCH
>
> Also, you might want to make sure your patch would include Fran's fix to
> base.bbclass that he mentioned at
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-September/023680.html
>
> For what my input is worth I would NAK this patch because:
>
> 1. I don't see a reason to add this to the generic set of overrides.
because you need for SoC support and it's not distrib related but hardware
related (SoC familly)
> 2. I don't understand why the name of the variable SOC_FAMILY needs to be
> changed. I know this will break existing overlays and I don't see any reason
> why the change is made.
> 3. I disagree with the ${TARGET_ARCH}_${TARGET_SOC_FAMILY} override. If you
> have two patch series for different architectures then you should have two
> SOC_FAMILY settings or use the MACHINE setting for the override. I think
> this override is confusing and redundant.
no as I describe already the same doc familly can be run on two or more ARCH
so this make sens and no it's no the machine to handle this but each receipe
and no it's not redundant at all it's more precises as at receipe level you
may we do this
SRC_URI_arm += patches
SRC_URI_arm_mnt += patches
SRC_URI_mnt += patches
SRC_URI_mips += patches
SRC_URI_mips_mnt += patches
so yes it's need
Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
