On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: > Le Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:36:21 -0300, > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : ... >> Yes and not all where being done right. We had most as machine >> specific which where wrong. >> > OK that seems fine. > > Do you have an idea of the cost on the build/parse time ?
It does slows the parsing a little but build in fact is faster (if you build more than one mx6 or mx5 based board, for example). >> > What is the cost on the build/parse time to have this code running >> > dynamicaly ? >> > >> > While at it : why does qt4 depends on virtual/kernel ? >> > That's quite annoying as it seems qt gets rebuilt everytime we make a >> > change to the kernel. >> >> It uses kernel headers and do syscalls for mxcfb. I am open for an >> advise how to make this better. >> > maybe we could include the linux/mxcfb.h in the patch as these 2 > ioctls and the 2 struct have little chance to change ? The problem here is it is included in the kernel. Can you submit a bug in bugzilla about this? So I can use this to collect the information. We have this in more places, not just Qt, and it'd help a lot so I will try to think on a generic solution for this. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
