On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Stefan Agner <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-12-03 10:28, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stefan Agner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2015-12-03 10:17, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>> I prefer SoC family as it makes easier for end customers to customized >>>> it without need to override the compatibility set in a bbappend. As >>>> this provides a SoM it is common it ends being used in a custom >>>> carrier board and eventually a new machine file in a customer layer >>>> can reuse the recipe. >>> >>> This is a good point, so e.g. if somebody would need to alter the >>> machine and would create a machine like apalis-imx6-mycarrier. We >>> actually would need another inheritance like SoC, for boards/carrier >>> boards... >> >> Yes but this can be add on the machine itself. The compatibile would >> demand a bbappend usually. > > How can this be added? By using the module name "apalis-imx6" as > SOC_FAMILY? > > In that case, a COMPATIBLE on module level would be good enough (e.g. as > it is now, just apalis/colibri-imx6 would be the module level).
Yes; so it is added to the MACHINEOVERRIDES and ends being used as fallback. This is done for Wandboard in the past and I think is still used for OLinuxIno boards. > However, so far customization needs on machine level hasn't really come > up so far. Customers typically use our default machines, and customize > the image by other means... Yes but I see no problem in making it easier for end-users, do you? -- 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
