From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QPdJ9-0001Oa-MP for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 18:21:11 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPdGE-0005b9-1E for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 18:18:10 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <1306420679.27470.186.camel@rex> References: <1306407015.2525.311.camel@phil-desktop> <1306420679.27470.186.camel@rex> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: <1306426688.2525.377.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Subject: Re: [pull-oe-uboot 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:21:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 15:37 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > u-boot in OE-Core would need something like COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "" > which makes this harder. Yes, true. I don't think that's a major problem, though, you just need a regex that won't match anything. Something like: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(?!^)" would probably do what you want, though it does have the admitted downside of looking rather like line noise. If this is going to be a common problem then it might be worth hacking base.bbclass about a bit to provide a more convenient way to do it. The UBOOT_MACHINE thing is fine as a solution for u-boot since that variable needs to exist anyway, but I wouldn't have been keen on introducing it just to control the recipe acceptability. > Its usually seem to work out easier to just do: > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_mymachine = "mymachine" > > which avoids several potential issues. Yeah, that would work fine too: you could even save a bit of typing by just using "" as the rvalue since an empty C_M will (somewhat counterintuitively) permit everything. I got the impression from Darren's original phraseology of "resorting to machine-specific overrides" that he didn't like it much, though. p.