From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A2260097 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id s9KFNOl5019511; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:23:24 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id qXLBCqUQrD6V; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:23:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id s9KFNKOW019508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:23:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1413818635.17752.159.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Mike Looijmans Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:23:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <544502B6.5040808@topic.nl> References: <5444F848.3040307@topic.nl> <1413806657.17752.154.camel@ted> <544502B6.5040808@topic.nl> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Going beyond MACHINE? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:24:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 14:40 +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: > On 10/20/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 13:55 +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: > >> The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond MACHINE? > >> > >> My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar problems): > >> > >> I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The 7015 > >> and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different FPGA > >> part (the 7030 is bigger and faster). > >> Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and > >> libraries are exactly the same. > >> > >> Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami" > >> so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages. > >> > >> However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though they > >> are exactly the same. > >> > >> The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the > >> bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for both > >> models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both > >> into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an option. > >> > >> Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make > >> sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how would a > >> user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be > >> the only thing he can really choose? > >> > >> Any thoughts and ideas are welcome... > > > > One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the > > intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific > > packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built > > once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine > > specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python > > injected at the machine level. > > Sounds doable, but I can't find anything about "intel gmgd" in any layer. > Which machine are you referring to here? Sorry, emgd: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/tree/classes/emgd-gl.bbclass?h=daisy http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/tree/conf/machine/include/meta-intel-emgd.inc?h=daisy I have actually sent Scott some text for the manual about this but its not been edited yet. Cheers, Richard