On 10/03/2012 07:07 AM, Andrea Adami wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Andrea Adami <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Bruce Ashfield >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 12-10-03 12:36 AM, Darren Hart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is necessary to supply file://defconfig to the SRC_URI when using >>>>> a defconfig (it is not implicitly understood as the commentary might >>>>> currently suggest). >>>> >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart<[email protected]> >>>>> CC: Bruce Ashfield<[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> meta-skeleton/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-custom.bb | 3 ++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta-skeleton/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-custom.bb >>>>> b/meta-skeleton/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-custom.bb >>>>> index 1f0b3a2..4115d2f 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta-skeleton/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-custom.bb >>>>> +++ b/meta-skeleton/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-custom.bb >>>>> @@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ >>>>> # >>>>> # You must also provide a Linux kernel configuration. The most direct >>>>> # method is to copy your .config to files/defconfig in your layer, >>>>> -# in the same directory as the bbappend. >>>>> +# in the same directory as the bbappend and add file://defconfig to >>>>> +# your SRC_URI. >>>>> # >>>>> # To use the yocto kernel tooling to generate a BSP configuration >>>>> # using modular configuration fragments, see the yocto-bsp and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >>> Great, this example can be very useful to create custom kernel recipes. >>> >>> Just one thing, the comments on the top suggest to set >>> # COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_yourmachine = "yourmachine" >>> >>> but at the end there is >>> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(^$)" >>> >>> Now, the latter form is what I'm used to see. >>> >>> Which kind of advantages using COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_yourmachine ? In >>> that way you don't mask the recipe for other machines...so I don't see >>> the purpose and I think should be discouraged. Thus, I'd amend the >>> example in the comment. >> >> I wouldn't call it exactly masking with that syntax. Other machines >> can still set >> their compatibility explicitly with their own machine specific >> override, which is >> how linux-yocto + linux-yocto-bsp + meta-$semi have been put together for >> quite some time. > > As long as the layer containing the -custom kernel recipe is not used > by other machines all is fine. > But if e.g you build for machine 'foo' and you have set > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_foo = "foo" in the .bbappend in your layer that > does not mask the recipe for the 'bar' machine. > (Think about including the full meta-intel layer and having a custom > kernel for say cedartail: the other machines would have now multiple > kernel providers) > If you set instead COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "foo" you are sure this recipe > will be ignored by other machines.
Are you saying that if users replace: COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(^$)" with COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_foo = "foo" That COMPATIBLE_MACHINE will default to "" for all the other machines and be implicitly marked as compatible? If so... I believe you are correct and that is not the desired behavior. the _machine is appropriate for bbappend files, but for custom bb files as this is meant to be used, a proper regex should be used. Care to submit a documentation patch for this? Thanks for the comments. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
