On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:14:38AM +0100, Robert Marko wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 11:13, Piotr Dymacz <pep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8.12.2023 11:02, Robert Marko wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 11:01, Piotr Dymacz <pep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Would it make sense to rename qualcommax to qualcomm and make ipq95xx > > >> just another subtarget of it (I'm aware of A53 vs. A73)? > > > > > > That depends on how much is shared between the AX SoC-s and the BE > > > ones(IPQ95xx and IPQ53xx). > > > > I would say enough to keep them together. > > > > > But, I would prefer that or qualcommbe target where new BE SoC-s will > > > be subtargets. > > > > I'm personally more a fan of limiting number of top targets and deal > > with differences under subtargets. > > Same here, better than to add more targets especially since a lot is shared.
This leads to needing more levels of organization. Instead of simply TARGET/SUBTARGET, you end up needing TARGET/SUBTARGET/SUBSUBTARGET. If this is going to be done, then the implementation should allow for an arbitrary number of levels. A makefile fragment I created for testing: foo := foo0 SUBfoo := foo1 SUBSUBfoo := foo2 define recur $(info current is $(1), value is $($(1)))) ignore := $(if $(filter $(flavor SUB$(1)),undefined),,$(call recur,SUB$(1))) endef ignore := $(call recur,foo) all: test.make @true So an arbitrary number of levels seems doable. Will mean rather substantial changes to the build system though. I tend to favor this as the 2 level limitation is already placing restrictions on the scaling of the build count. -- (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/) \BS ( | ehem+sig...@m5p.com PGP 87145445 | ) / \_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/ 8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445 _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel