From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8rPT-0003nx-Hg for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:26:11 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8rOp-0005Kf-PE for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:25:27 +0200 Received: from ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl ([84.80.112.235]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:25:27 +0200 Received: from k.kooi by ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:25:27 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:25:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1287233406-8778-1-git-send-email-ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com> <201010181520.30454.marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl> <4CBC4DD4.3010908@atmel.com> <4CBC7F6A.9040000@atmel.com> <4CBCD3FC.5090305@atmel.com> <4CBF81FC.3040803@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.14) Gecko/20101002 Shredder/3.0.9pre In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Use common files for AT91SAM9 configuration X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:26:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-10-10 10:43, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > PS: my opinion is that machine maintainers generally know better what > kernel works best for their machines than distro owners; And what's stopping them to put DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_machine and COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the kernel recipes? There is no technical reason for setting it in machine.conf, so why should we break the orthogonality for that? > PPS: what's next? removing the PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel from > the machine configs because you feel you know better ? That is actually an option these days since most kernel recipes set COMPATIBLE_MACHINE correctly :) But seriously, there are use cases for one distro to use a different kernel for a given machine for whatever reasons. This whole situation is a mess because recipes/linux is a mess. It would be a nice topic for OEDEM to see if we should switch to a poky BSP model. It would boils down to: 1 bblayer per machine or SOC_FAMILY containing: * machine.conf * first and second stage bootloaders * kernel I can see some serious issues with that, but that's for another thread to discuss. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFMwAb7MkyGM64RGpERAuYSAKCaGnOasoXFk0Cb9xvcASP211PU0gCfaacw 850xksIBon0+M5P9rbt4mOo= =5mO/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----