From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 812EEE00902; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:42:06 -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=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high * trust * [192.94.94.41 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.41]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D5FE0084A for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dbdlxv05.itg.ti.com ([172.24.171.60]) by bear.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id s9R8g1I6005142 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:42:02 -0500 Received: from DBDE72.ent.ti.com (dbdmailx.itg.ti.com [172.24.171.97]) by dbdlxv05.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9R8fx1j002649 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:12:00 +0530 Received: from [172.24.157.139] (172.24.157.139) by DBDE72.ent.ti.com (172.24.171.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:11:58 +0530 Message-ID: <544E0555.3010507@ti.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:11:57 +0530 From: Karthik Ramanan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denys Dmytriyenko References: <1411559009-7951-2-git-send-email-a0393906@ti.com> <1412142291-11850-1-git-send-email-a0393906@ti.com> <20141007191647.GD1731@edge> In-Reply-To: <20141007191647.GD1731@edge> X-Originating-IP: [172.24.157.139] Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dspdce-fw: Updated dspdce firmware for latest IPC version X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:42:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08-Oct-14 12:46 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > Karthik, > > I'm at lost here. You did address my previous comment of not leaving 2 > versions, just updating from .02 to .04, but I don't understand why do you > need an .inc file for, if there's only one version left? > > I traced it a bit back and there was a recommendation from Franklin about > creating .inc file for a different recipe for ipumm-fw, but in that case it is > warranted due to the fact that you pull 2 different sources for 2 platforms. > So, in that case it might be better having 2 separate recipes for different > machines with common parts in the .inc file, but see for yourself if that > produces cleaner and simpler results. It's not alwats clear cut and you may > need to experiment to choose the right option... > > Either way, dspdce-fw doesn't seem to need an .inc file. > Denys, There is a case where there may be multiple dspdce firmware versions based on different versions of IPC. It will make sense that we introduce the inc file when there is a need. I will abandon this patch and resubmit a v3 for this. Regards Karthik