Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH v2] imx-base.inc mxs-base.inc: Add imx MACHINEOVERRIDES

[Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster@mail.bg>]

Hi Daiane,

On 07/07/2015 03:30 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Ann Thornton <Ann.Thornton@freescale.com> wrote:
>> Hi Nikolay,
>>
>> QorIQ will be merged into a common layer with i.MX.
>> See "[meta-freescale] Freescale meta-freescale announcement of new layer"
>
> Ann, Nikolay,
>
> Currently on 1.8 (fido) of meta-fsl-arm we already have 3 different
> product lines from Freescale: i.MX, Layerscape/QoirQ and Vybrid. And
> currently the OVERRIDE "imx" is not exactly needed (if you think
> everything has been working fine so far).
>
> Please see [1], the heads (imx, vybrid and layerscape) are not from
> the meta-fsl-arm source code, but faked for the picture.
>
> Back to 1.6 RN I was able to find vybrid already being graphically
> represented in a SOC Family tree.
>
> So, the argument that imx is needed because of meta-freescale is not
> right. Having a OVERRIDE for imx and vybrid and layerscape may make
> sense because of some future differentiation on the BSP regarding
> product lines.
>
> On the other hand, if we have time, we can discuss it a lot. For
> example, if you take the imx6, you see, from BSP point of view, we
> have more diverging than converging packages. Would it make sense to

Indeed, I also think that the "imx" family will cover a set of such
widely different SoCs, so I was wondering whether there's any practical
use case where we can address all these SoCs as "the imx". We already
have "imx6*" overrides, which are both specific and works to separate
from qoriq.

> keep the "imx6" OVERRIDE today?
>
> I would like to have the SOC_FAMILY tree reviewed for sure. I know we
> have a lot of possible enhancement there. But I really don't get the
> overall picture only with this patch.
>
> And, the commit log is wrong. We already have non-imx machines in meta-fsl-arm.
>
> [1] http://freescale.github.io/doc/release-notes/1.8/index.html#soc-hierarchy
>
> Regards,
> Daiane
>
>
>>
>> Ann
>>
>> On 7/6/2015 3:34 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ann,
>>
>> On 07/06/2015 10:04 PM, Ann Thornton wrote:
>>
>> Soon non-imx machines will be added to the builds.  We need to be able to
>> specify imx machines to distinguish between them in recipes. This change
>> allows _imx to be used to limit actions to i.MX machines.
>>
>>
>> Can you please explain why there's this need for such generalization?
>> This "imx" family covers quite a diverse set of SoCs.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nikolay
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ann Thornton
>>
>> Microcontrollers Software and Applications
>> Freescale Semiconductors
>> email: Ann.Thornton@freescale.com
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> meta-freescale mailing list
>> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
>>
>
>
>

Regards,
Nikolay