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

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

[Ann Thornton]

As new i.MX machines are added and product lines are increasing,
having an override for imx machines in general will help clarify
recipes, images, and packagegroups and keep the list of imx 
supported machines a little shorter.

Signed-off-by: Ann Thornton <ra43240@freescale.com>
---
 conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc |    3 +++
 conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc |    3 +++
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
index 51625eb..32c06c6 100644
--- a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
+++ b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
@@ -117,3 +117,6 @@ SERIAL_CONSOLE = "115200 ttymxc0"
 KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "zImage"
 
 MACHINE_FEATURES = "apm usbgadget usbhost vfat alsa touchscreen"
+
+# Add the ability to specify _imx machines
+MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "imx:"
diff --git a/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
index a6c34e1..b981155 100644
--- a/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
+++ b/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
@@ -32,3 +32,6 @@ MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS = "kernel-modules"
 SERIAL_CONSOLE = "115200 ttyAMA0"
 
 KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "zImage"
+
+# Add the ability to specify _imx machines
+MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "imx:"
-- 
1.7.9.5

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

[Ann Thornton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1556 bytes --]


This might be a better commit message.

Ann

On 7/8/2015 3:11 PM, Ann Thornton wrote:
> As new i.MX machines are added and product lines are increasing,
> having an override for imx machines in general will help clarify
> recipes, images, and packagegroups and keep the list of imx
> supported machines a little shorter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ann Thornton <ra43240@freescale.com>
> ---
>   conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc |    3 +++
>   conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc |    3 +++
>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> index 51625eb..32c06c6 100644
> --- a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> +++ b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> @@ -117,3 +117,6 @@ SERIAL_CONSOLE = "115200 ttymxc0"
>   KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "zImage"
>   
>   MACHINE_FEATURES = "apm usbgadget usbhost vfat alsa touchscreen"
> +
> +# Add the ability to specify _imx machines
> +MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "imx:"
> diff --git a/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
> index a6c34e1..b981155 100644
> --- a/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
> +++ b/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
> @@ -32,3 +32,6 @@ MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS = "kernel-modules"
>   SERIAL_CONSOLE = "115200 ttyAMA0"
>   
>   KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "zImage"
> +
> +# Add the ability to specify _imx machines
> +MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "imx:"


-- 
Ann Thornton

/Microcontrollers Software and Applications
Freescale Semiconductors
email: Ann.Thornton@freescale.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2198 bytes --]

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

[Ann Thornton]

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.

Signed-off-by: Ann Thornton <ra43240@freescale.com>
---
 conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc |    3 +++
 conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc |    3 +++
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
index 51625eb..32c06c6 100644
--- a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
+++ b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
@@ -117,3 +117,6 @@ SERIAL_CONSOLE = "115200 ttymxc0"
 KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "zImage"
 
 MACHINE_FEATURES = "apm usbgadget usbhost vfat alsa touchscreen"
+
+# Add the ability to specify _imx machines
+MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "imx:"
diff --git a/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc b/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
index a6c34e1..b981155 100644
--- a/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
+++ b/conf/machine/include/mxs-base.inc
@@ -32,3 +32,6 @@ MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS = "kernel-modules"
 SERIAL_CONSOLE = "115200 ttyAMA0"
 
 KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "zImage"
+
+# Add the ability to specify _imx machines
+MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "imx:"
-- 
1.7.9.5

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

[Nikolay Dimitrov]

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

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

[Ann Thornton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 772 bytes --]

Hi Nikolay,

QorIQ will be merged into a common layer with i.MX.
See "[meta-freescale] Freescale meta-freescale announcement of new layer"

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/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1598 bytes --]

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

[Daiane Angolini]

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
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
>

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

[Nikolay Dimitrov]

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

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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster@mail.bg> wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 03:30 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
...
>> 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.

I see the value of an 'imx' override as I do as well see the value of
a 'qoriq' and 'vybrid' overrides.

However, those will be rarely used as most stuff is SoC specific and
otherwise should be upstreamed.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

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

[Ann Thornton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3735 bytes --]


It is true that mx6 can be used today but soon there will be mx7 and mx8 
and the list will get longer.  Also qoriq and automotive will be added 
in which we will want to exclude from i.mx.  There are recipes, images, 
and packagegroups that currently don't need to check for the machine 
that will need to coming up and bbappends that will be needed to 
differentiate between machines. imx would be a convenience that will be 
useful in the near future. The alternative is a long list of i.MX machines.

Ann


On 7/7/2015 10:12 AM, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote:
> 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


-- 
Ann Thornton

/Microcontrollers Software and Applications
Freescale Semiconductors
email: Ann.Thornton@freescale.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6624 bytes --]

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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Ann Thornton
<Ann.Thornton@freescale.com> wrote:
> It is true that mx6 can be used today but soon there will be mx7 and mx8 and
> the list will get longer.  Also qoriq and automotive will be added in which
> we will want to exclude from i.mx.  There are recipes, images, and
> packagegroups that currently don't need to check for the machine that will
> need to coming up and bbappends that will be needed to differentiate between
> machines. imx would be a convenience that will be useful in the near future.
> The alternative is a long list of i.MX machines.

As I said, I understand the value of this addition and I think this
should go in. However I want to make sure people understand that this
will be rarely used. Several things will end with a huge list of SoCs
as this should be used ONLY when it is i.MX specific and globally
supported by all the SoCs.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

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

[Daiane Angolini]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Ann Thornton
> <Ann.Thornton@freescale.com> wrote:
>> It is true that mx6 can be used today but soon there will be mx7 and mx8 and
>> the list will get longer.  Also qoriq and automotive will be added in which
>> we will want to exclude from i.mx.  There are recipes, images, and
>> packagegroups that currently don't need to check for the machine that will
>> need to coming up and bbappends that will be needed to differentiate between
>> machines. imx would be a convenience that will be useful in the near future.
>> The alternative is a long list of i.MX machines.
>
> As I said, I understand the value of this addition and I think this
> should go in. However I want to make sure people understand that this
> will be rarely used. Several things will end with a huge list of SoCs
> as this should be used ONLY when it is i.MX specific and globally
> supported by all the SoCs.

I'm not against including imx now. I think it does not hurt what we have today.

However, meta-freescale is a perfect opportunity to really rework the
SOC_FAMILY tree (a never used meta layer is the ideal timing to make a
huge change on SOC_FAMILY as it's really needed.

And this includes the discussion around packagegroup being part of the BSP.

Daiane
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Ann Thornton
>> <Ann.Thornton@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> It is true that mx6 can be used today but soon there will be mx7 and mx8 and
>>> the list will get longer.  Also qoriq and automotive will be added in which
>>> we will want to exclude from i.mx.  There are recipes, images, and
>>> packagegroups that currently don't need to check for the machine that will
>>> need to coming up and bbappends that will be needed to differentiate between
>>> machines. imx would be a convenience that will be useful in the near future.
>>> The alternative is a long list of i.MX machines.
>>
>> As I said, I understand the value of this addition and I think this
>> should go in. However I want to make sure people understand that this
>> will be rarely used. Several things will end with a huge list of SoCs
>> as this should be used ONLY when it is i.MX specific and globally
>> supported by all the SoCs.
>
> I'm not against including imx now. I think it does not hurt what we have today.
>
> However, meta-freescale is a perfect opportunity to really rework the
> SOC_FAMILY tree (a never used meta layer is the ideal timing to make a
> huge change on SOC_FAMILY as it's really needed.
>
> And this includes the discussion around packagegroup being part of the BSP.

I fully agree in this regard. This also needs to be discussed and I
think each of those items is worth a email thread.

Can you share your thoughts in the SoC family and package groups
issues in two emails?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

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

[Daiane Angolini]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Ann Thornton
>>> <Ann.Thornton@freescale.com> wrote:
>>>> It is true that mx6 can be used today but soon there will be mx7 and mx8 and
>>>> the list will get longer.  Also qoriq and automotive will be added in which
>>>> we will want to exclude from i.mx.  There are recipes, images, and
>>>> packagegroups that currently don't need to check for the machine that will
>>>> need to coming up and bbappends that will be needed to differentiate between
>>>> machines. imx would be a convenience that will be useful in the near future.
>>>> The alternative is a long list of i.MX machines.
>>>
>>> As I said, I understand the value of this addition and I think this
>>> should go in. However I want to make sure people understand that this
>>> will be rarely used. Several things will end with a huge list of SoCs
>>> as this should be used ONLY when it is i.MX specific and globally
>>> supported by all the SoCs.
>>
>> I'm not against including imx now. I think it does not hurt what we have today.
>>
>> However, meta-freescale is a perfect opportunity to really rework the
>> SOC_FAMILY tree (a never used meta layer is the ideal timing to make a
>> huge change on SOC_FAMILY as it's really needed.
>>
>> And this includes the discussion around packagegroup being part of the BSP.
>
> I fully agree in this regard. This also needs to be discussed and I
> think each of those items is worth a email thread.
>
> Can you share your thoughts in the SoC family and package groups
> issues in two emails?

Good idea, I'm going to prepare it.

Daiane
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

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

[Nikolay Dimitrov]

Hi Ann, Daiane, Otavio,

On 07/08/2015 05:33 PM, Ann Thornton wrote:
>
> It is true that mx6 can be used today but soon there will be mx7 and mx8
> and the list will get longer.  Also qoriq and automotive will be added
> in which we will want to exclude from i.mx.  There are recipes, images,
> and packagegroups that currently don't need to check for the machine
> that will need to coming up and bbappends that will be needed to
> differentiate between machines. imx would be a convenience that will be
> useful in the near future. The alternative is a long list of i.MX machines.

Thanks for explaining, I'm not against this override.

Regards,
Nikolay