From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QPyfa-0000FO-Qu for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:09:47 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2011 08:06:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,280,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="2961872" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.184]) ([10.255.12.184]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2011 08:06:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4DDFBE03.9060603@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 08:06:43 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <1306407015.2525.311.camel@phil-desktop> <1306420679.27470.186.camel@rex> <1306426688.2525.377.camel@phil-desktop> <4DDE9206.7020007@linux.intel.com> <1306505097.2525.457.camel@phil-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1306505097.2525.457.camel@phil-desktop> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:09:47 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/27/2011 07:04 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 10:46 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> Right, it just starts to look rather ugly in the recipe, especially for >> BSPs supporting more than just a couple of machines. I also think that >> having to use machine overrides is an indicator that the mechanism is >> not working for the purpose it was designed for. > > Yes, agreed. But the point I was making in my first mail is that you > don't actually need to use machine overrides at all; just appending to > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE will work fine. > > So, to be clear, in the core u-boot.bb you could have: > > # These machines are supported by upstream u-boot > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(beagleboard$|at91sam9260ek$)" > > and then, in some putative meta-dec overlay, you could have a > u_boot.bbappend which does: > > # This patch adds PDP-11 support to u-boot > SRC_URI += "pdp11.patch" > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE .= "|pdp11$" Ah good point, and if you have multiple machines: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE .= "|(pdp11$|pdp11/20$)" In fact... why are the parens used at all? I think we would likely get a lot of bug reports on the lists if we used this approach, using regex's here seems rather non-intuitive to me (and I'm rather fond of regexes). > > and everything ought to work out just fine. The only bit that is > slightly non-obvious is what to do if you don't want the core version of > u-boot to admit any MACHINEs at all but, as I mentioned to Richard, you > can achieve that by setting > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(?!^)" > > or something similar. All this said, do you have any objection to using UBOOT_MACHINE in the machine.conf with the anon python check for it in the inc file? I think you said not, but I want to be sure. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel