Re: moving meta-{openpower, x86, arm} content to meta-phosphor

[Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1256 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:15:52AM -0400, Brad Bishop wrote:
> I propose we allow the creation of additional folders using this
> convention e.g.
> 
> - recipes-power

I'd like to propose a change to the name of your processor
architecture to avoid confusion between recipes involving the power
subsystem, but I'm sure your marketing organization would have a thing
or two to say about it.  In seriousness, it might be good to continue to
use openpower in this project considering that the OpenPower Foundation
holds the ISA specs and it avoids confusion with the power subsystem.

> - recipes-x86-amd (we might want to look at renaming recipes-x86 to
> recipes-x86-intel)

I think it would be good to come up with a schema on how we represent
the machine overrides and recipe subdirectories so there isn't
inconsistency there.   Something like <arch>-<company>-<model>[1]?

I do have slight concern about there becoming an enormous number of
variable overrides, patch files, etc. as we support an increasing number
of processors, but I suppose that points to an underlying problem in our
implementation which needs refactoring.


1. What do we do about risc-v which has a dash in the architecture name?

-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]