Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-syslink: Add TI Syslink for TI816x and TI814x devices

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06-04-11 04:42, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 05-04-11 17:10, Siddharth Heroor wrote:
>>> From: Siddharth Heroor <heroor@ti.com>
>>>
>>> * Syslink is an Inter Processor communication layer for ARM/DSP devices.
>>
>> NAK!
>>
>> 1) This has way too much copy/paste crud from dsplink that needs to get
>> cleaned up, some highlights:
> Yes, I did follow precedence and use what was already present in OE.
> 
>>
>>> +PROVIDES = "ti-syslink-module"
>>> +PROVIDES += "ti-syslink-examples"
>>> +PR_append = "j"
>>
>> 2) inconsistent whitespace every where, do_compile is the worst
>>
>> 3) This really needs to get split into 2 recipes: one for the kernel
>> modules using module.bbclass and one for the userspace bits.
> 
> I can split the examples and libraries into two recipes, but we may need the
> kernel module and libraries to be staged together. What would you suggest
> I do to keep them together when staging?

You don't need to stage the kernel modules, only the symbol map. And I
doubt even that is necessary looking at the syslink diagrams.

>> 4) The platform defines seem to be better suited for e.g. ti-paths.inc
> 
> Would moving all the defines into a separate ti-syslink-env.inc be good or does
> it have to be in ti-paths.inc. I'm not keen on keep all the syslink
> defines in ti-paths.inc
> as its unrelated to the other recipes that use ti-paths.inc.

And a related question, why is this version of syslink so convoluted
compared to
http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/tree/recipes/ti/ti-syslink_git.bb
?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNnBYtMkyGM64RGpERArn6AKCKCyr22nEDOFPTahnnhsqvvNQbWwCePna9
AplUQiJ0epW8GZ/rzsSBoOo=
=Jrak
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----