On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Kaspar Schleiser <kas...@schleiser.de> wrote: > Hey Joakim, > > On 04/21/2017 06:46 PM, Joakim Nohlgård wrote: >> I would like to change this split to create groups of boards which are >> likely to fail together to be in the same group. For example, the Nucleo >> boards could be in one or more groups cortexm_nucleo, the SAM boards, >> nrf, and kinetis boards would be suitable candidates for other groups. >> Practically grouping by each xxx_common source directory makes sense in >> my opinion. > > IMO a good idea. And as Sebastian pointed out, the build groups > themselves will be obsolete, soon. > > How about introducing tags? The difference being that a board can have > more than one "tag", with some of them possibly defined by the MCU used. > > e.g., every nucleo gets "nucleo", "arm" and "cortex-m", but some also > get "cortex-m0" and maybe "lowmem", others get "cortex-m4" and > "hardfloat". You get the idea. > > That way we could use our buildtests like: > > $ make buildtest TAGS=msp430 > > or even > > $ make buildtest TAGEXPR="cortex-m0 and nucleo" > > It might be that this is equivalent to what we now call "features". ;)
A good idea, we could introduce just introduce more features and wire the features_required checks to be available from the command line. `make buildtest TAGS=kinetis` would be very useful while working on periph drivers. > > Kaspar > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
