Re: [PATCH] base.bbclass: add support for SOC_FAMILY in COMPATIBLE_MACHINES

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:38PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 13:17 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > FWIW, minimal is using MACHINE_CLASS since quite a while to
> > reduce the need for adding the same files over and over again,
> > this is being used e.g. for HTC msm7 series and OpenEZX series
> > (see conf/machine/include).
> > 
> > Perhaps it's time to standardize something like that.
> 
> Yeah.  I certainly don't think we want a proliferation of such
> mechanisms.  If minimal is already using MACHINE_CLASS then there would
> be some sense in trying to make use of the same thing.
> 
> Failing that though, testing COMPATIBLE_MACHINE against MACHINE_CLASS
> probably is more desirable than adding a completely new variable (i.e.
> SOC_FAMILY) for that purpose.

Phil,

Re: "adding a completely new variable" - SOC_FAMILY has been in use for almost 
a year now. I'm hearing about MACHINE_CLASS for the first time, although it 
appears to be slightly older than SOC_FAMILY though. But it doesn't seem to be 
used anywhere besides in few machine configs and micro.conf. There are no 
recipes actually using it, unlike SOC_FAMILY...

I'm not saying one is better than the other (actually, unifying them would 
be nice), I'm just saying it's too late to object adding SOC_FAMILY...

-- 
Denys