On 03/11/2015 11:30 AM, Owain Davies wrote: > I read their review, I am not sure that PRODUCT_SEPOLICY_* wouldn't have > been a good idea. I don't know why they did not like it. > > > The current guidance is to make a device tree per product and > inherit from the main device, this is how tuna, maguro, etc use to work. > > > > So, let me check I have this write. If I am building for hammerhead and > flounder then the original files are are at: > - device/lge/hammerhead > - device/htc/flounder > > If my product is creatively name "myprod" I would create the following tree: > > - device/myprod/common > -- BoardConfigPartial.mk > - device/myprod/hammerhead > -- AndroidProducts.mk > -- BoardConfig.mk > - device/myprod/flounder > -- AndroidProducts.mk > -- BoardConfig.mk > > Then have each devices BoardConfig and AndroidProducts.mk inherit their > respective parents makefile and include my product specific files as > well? Then could I just put the BOARD_SEPOLICY_UNION setting in > BoardConfigPartial.mk. > > How does the build system determine which BoardConfig.mk to use? If I > were to lunch the aosp_hammerhead product rather than the > myprod_hammerhead product how would it know not to use the > BoardConfig.mk files in the myprod tree? > > Sorry if this is very obvious.
In the past, we have put BOARD_SEPOLICY_DIRS += ... and BOARD_SEPOLICY_UNION += lines in e.g. vendor/foo/hammerhead/device-partial.mk and then added $(call inherit-product-if-exists, vendor/foo/$(LOCAL_STEM)) to vendor/lge/hammerhead/device-vendor.mk. The variables can be used outside of BoardConfig.mk and by using += they should just combine. _______________________________________________ Seandroid-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. To get help, send an email containing "help" to [email protected].
