From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id A605DE0087C; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:35:37 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [81.169.146.162 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Greylist: delayed 383 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at yocto-www; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 04:35:33 PST Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de [81.169.146.162]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37027E0086E for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:35:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1425645331; l=951; s=domk; d=jenslucius.de; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From: Date; bh=7v1p3N92x+LJI7MTfmloaiBQYVwBoDJ91VAT4t23Ajk=; b=OsVPgFAWPBODPrGogqHDhmGE7BKpJIGpaqG8I+/TQiqcvb2Hu0vgMID0t0hIrtfWbAT AH4rOPHl9KV4dyQb69ivcxaaccA8/vh5ocZWOKSgaDEPIxMJS8ooNYaOPvpM+kH2b1VQ6 IMU4osEIWcoCGKxztY3IasvcChD3iJT+HTk= X-RZG-AUTH: :JWIHe0W/aN/Hg12BLSzL3z7LlaxFnIKmofguyxtBBEzwL1PfgREHsiFrwAHms9nRTg== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from [192.168.2.12] (p5B0E28A4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.14.40.164]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 37.3 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id 3048e4r26CT8Ut4 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:29:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54F99D99.6090806@jenslucius.de> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:29:13 +0100 From: Jens Lucius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yocto discussion list Subject: Different u-boot recipes (machine names and provider) 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, 06 Mar 2015 12:35:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, I am working on a custom machine layer, which until now has it´s own u-boot recipe for a custom u-boot. I want to add a recipe for mainline u-boot additional to that. I have defined a PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot and PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/bootloader which point to the custom u-boot to not break the current build, which can be changed to the mainline u-boot if needed to build the mainline. First question: Do I need to define both PREFERRED_PROVIDER (u-boot and virtual/bootloader)? I have seen different approaches in different layers. Now the hard part: custom u-boot and mainline u-boot have different UBOOT_MACHINE values for the same hardware. Is it possible to define different values for different u-boot recipes? Right now they are defined in the machine configurations. Would it be possible (and advisable) to define them in the u-boot recipes themselves? Or is there another approach ? Thanks, Jens