On 05/27/2011 07:04 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 10:46 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> Right, it just starts to look rather ugly in the recipe, especially for >> BSPs supporting more than just a couple of machines. I also think that >> having to use machine overrides is an indicator that the mechanism is >> not working for the purpose it was designed for. > > Yes, agreed. But the point I was making in my first mail is that you > don't actually need to use machine overrides at all; just appending to > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE will work fine. > > So, to be clear, in the core u-boot.bb you could have: > > # These machines are supported by upstream u-boot > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(beagleboard$|at91sam9260ek$)" > > and then, in some putative meta-dec overlay, you could have a > u_boot.bbappend which does: > > # This patch adds PDP-11 support to u-boot > SRC_URI += "pdp11.patch" > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE .= "|pdp11$"
Ah good point, and if you have multiple machines: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE .= "|(pdp11$|pdp11/20$)" In fact... why are the parens used at all? I think we would likely get a lot of bug reports on the lists if we used this approach, using regex's here seems rather non-intuitive to me (and I'm rather fond of regexes). > > and everything ought to work out just fine. The only bit that is > slightly non-obvious is what to do if you don't want the core version of > u-boot to admit any MACHINEs at all but, as I mentioned to Richard, you > can achieve that by setting > > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(?!^)" > > or something similar. All this said, do you have any objection to using UBOOT_MACHINE in the machine.conf with the anon python check for it in the inc file? I think you said not, but I want to be sure. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core