[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 02/13] buildman: Add some notes about moving from MAKEALL

Simon Glass
2014-08-07T12:12:18Z

Hi Tom, York,

On 6 August 2014 09:06, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 08:20:47AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi York,
>>
>> On 5 August 2014 20:53, York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/5/14 7:15 PM, "Simon Glass" <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But in this case why not just leave off the 'freescale'?
>> >>>
>> >>> This is just an example. What if I chose "-a arm" and "-v freescale".
>> >>>ARM has
>> >>> 300+ targets, but only 20+ are for Freescale. I could save time by
>> >>>building a
>> >>> lot less platforms.
>> >>>
>> >>> The point here is the "OR" logic.
>> >>
>> >>I suppose you could use mx6 or similar, but I take your point.
>> >>
>> >>So what could we do here? Perhaps add a --vendor flag to limit to a
>> >>particular vendor? Would that be enough?
>> >
>> > With the ability to build targets for more than one arch, I will be
>> > tempted to use syntax like this
>> >
>> > buildman (powerpc & freescale) (arm & freescale) aarch64
>
> Spaces outside of parens are implicit ORs here, so all
> powerpc+freescale, all arm+freescale and all aarch64. In the fullness
> of time the last one might become all freescale+aarch64. Bonus points
> if we can easily write 'buildman ... ((powerpc|arm|aarch64) & freescale)'
>
> Thinking out loud, the problem is today we have | for OR but we don't
> have an AND symbol. I can do:
> $ buildman 'arm|powerpc|aarch64'
> Today and get what I want. But I can't:
> $ buildman '(powerpc&freescale)|(arm&freescale)'

OK I'll have a crack at this.

Regards,
Simon