From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from static.26.116.47.78.clients.your-server.de ([78.47.116.26] helo=phalanx.drlauer-research.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqwSX-0004Pn-0r for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:11:15 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (e180147196.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.180.147.196]) by phalanx.drlauer-research.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E39584122 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:15:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael 'Mickey' Lauer To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Vanille-Media Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:09:20 +0200 Message-ID: <1283382560.2012.24.camel@saphir> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.47.116.26 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mickey@vanille-media.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: SOC_FAMILY broken X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:11:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am Mittwoch, den 01.09.2010, 23:22 +0200 schrieb Leon Woestenberg: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks > wrote: > > Root cause: if SOC_FAMILY is not set (awhich is the case for most > > MACHINEs and all distro's except angstrom) the test in base.bbclass > > > > Good point, but I never understood SOC_FAMILY. From an old email: > > "SOC_FAMILY is defining a family of processors and the features that processor > has. Whereas MACHINE_CLASS is defining a type of device and its features which > can use different processors." > > I think the first sentence is contradicting itself. > > A "family of processors" vs. "features that processor had". This can > be fully orthogonal (worst case), > so the definition of the variable is crap. I wonder, has it proven > more useful than cumbersome? I still don't know why we need both SOC_FAMILY and MACHINE_CLASS in the first place. MACHINE_CLASS has been around for much longer and if you look how it's being used or intended to use, you see that there are hardly any processor differences in the members of those classes (e.g. openezx, qualcomm msm7, om-gta01/02, clamshell zaurus models, ...). I'm still unconvinced that we need both variables. Cheers, -- :M: