From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.19]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgibK-0006xw-PO for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:22:05 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.251.53.61]) by vms173019.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0L6N00MOU1JLCRO1@vms173019.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:21:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AF98914AF64; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:21:21 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20100804172121.GC7189@denix.org> References: <1280872040-31952-1-git-send-email-chase.maupin@ti.com> <20100804001959.GF17391@denix.org> <20100804052042.GB7085@gmail.com> <1280920678.26249.33.camel@saphir> <1280922518.2692.377.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> <20100804161327.GA7189@denix.org> <4C599C72.10805@xora.org.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <4C599C72.10805@xora.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.19 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 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: [PATCH] base.bbclass: add support for SOC_FAMILY in COMPATIBLE_MACHINES 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, 04 Aug 2010 18:22:06 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:59:30PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote: > On 04/08/10 17:13, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:38PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 13:17 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > >>> FWIW, minimal is using MACHINE_CLASS since quite a while to > >>> reduce the need for adding the same files over and over again, > >>> this is being used e.g. for HTC msm7 series and OpenEZX series > >>> (see conf/machine/include). > >>> > >>> Perhaps it's time to standardize something like that. > >> Yeah. I certainly don't think we want a proliferation of such > >> mechanisms. If minimal is already using MACHINE_CLASS then there would > >> be some sense in trying to make use of the same thing. > >> > >> Failing that though, testing COMPATIBLE_MACHINE against MACHINE_CLASS > >> probably is more desirable than adding a completely new variable (i.e. > >> SOC_FAMILY) for that purpose. > > Phil, > > > > Re: "adding a completely new variable" - SOC_FAMILY has been in use for almost > > a year now. I'm hearing about MACHINE_CLASS for the first time, although it > > appears to be slightly older than SOC_FAMILY though. But it doesn't seem to be > > used anywhere besides in few machine configs and micro.conf. There are no > > recipes actually using it, unlike SOC_FAMILY... > > > > I'm not saying one is better than the other (actually, unifying them would > > be nice), I'm just saying it's too late to object adding SOC_FAMILY... > > > As the person who originally added MACHINE_CLASS to openmoko and the OE, > then removed it from OE I can say it has different meaning that > SOC_FAMILY. MACHINE_CLASS was to identify a range of machines that were > 90% the same but had a few differences. It was used in a few recipes > which were MACHINE_ARCH to make them use the same ARCH in these recipes > to stop them being rebuilt when switching machines. > > The original use was om-gta01 and om-gta02 which had the same MACHINE_CLASS. Graeme, Thanks for clarifying this! Do you still see a benefit in using MACHINE_CLASS? Why was it removed from OE? I don't see why it can't be used alongside SOC_FAMILY... -- Denys