From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 6BEA9E0096C; Fri, 2 May 2014 06:01:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: Received: from www.dynamicdevices.co.uk (www.dynamicdevices.co.uk [89.200.136.37]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F3AE00478 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 06:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.dynamicdevices.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A22127E015; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:01:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at lennoab2.miniserver.com Received: from www.dynamicdevices.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.dynamicdevices.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vm3OEit12QVn; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (cpc32-live22-2-0-cust59.17-2.cable.virginm.net [82.36.253.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.dynamicdevices.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 253C227E006; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5363973A.6020106@dynamicdevices.co.uk> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 14:01:46 +0100 From: Alex J Lennon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otavio Salvador References: <5362171B.8010000@dynamicdevices.co.uk> <5577559.2gRHFt1x94@peggleto-mobl5.ger.corp.intel.com> <536285BC.8010200@dynamicdevices.co.uk> <53632C0B.1010401@dynamicdevices.co.uk> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Cc: Paul Eggleton , yocto Subject: Re: Undefining a variable in a recipe? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 13:01:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon > wrote: > ... >> So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a >> flag is behaving as you would expect it to, >> or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG >> isn't defined? >> >> Thanks in advance for any advice, > I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which > is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. > > The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in > the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the > value was different from newer releases. > > In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the > UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. > If I have to do that, then I have to do that. However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the meta-fsl-arm layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend the time right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as I will be moving up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? Thanks, Alex