On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Maupin, Chase <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador >> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:27 PM >> To: Denys Dmytriyenko >> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Patches and discussions about the oe-core >> layer >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] soc-family: fix SOC_FAMILY >> override order >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:52:57PM -0300, Otavio Salvador >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Chase Maupin >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > * the current order has SOC_FAMILY settings, which are >> generic >> >> > settings for a group of devices, overriding the machine >> specific >> >> > settings. For example: >> >> > >> >> > KERNEL_DEVICETREE_ti33x = "xxxx" >> >> > KERNEL_DEVICETREE_beaglebone = "yyyy" >> >> > >> >> > Should yield "yyyy" when building for the beaglebone >> because >> >> > that is a more specific device than ti33x. However, >> without this >> >> > change the result is that the value is set to "xxxx" >> meaning the >> >> > more generic setting overrides the more specific setting. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Chase Maupin <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Maybe while on that you could look at supporting xx:yy as SoC >> family? >> >> like am37xx:am3715 ? >> > >> > Did you mean am3517? That's a slightly different variant of >> am35x/omap35x SoC. >> >> Yes; sorry ... what I meant was 'am35xx:am3517' >> >> > But if you really meant am3715 (as well as am3705, am3725 and >> am3730), then >> > those are variants of am37x SoC, just with some subsystems, >> like SGX or DSP, >> > being absent or present. Having those variants handled by >> SOC_FAMILY would be >> > an overkill. Instead, we've started using MACHINE_FEATURES to >> distinguish >> > between those variants of the same SoC, by checking for "sgx" >> and/or "dsp" >> > flags there and pulling in needed software components >> accordingly. >> >> My main concern here is that COMPATIBLE_MACHINE also parses >> SOC_FAMILY >> however if you have two (as the 'am35xx:am3517') it is going to >> fail; >> it could split it and parse it individually. > > Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm following here. Are you saying you would find it > useful to have support for a MACHINE to have more than one SOC_FAMILY? In > the example above I would have expected that you would have a machine config > file for am3517 which has an SOC_FAMILY of am35xx. Why would you specify two > SOC_FAMILY values per machine?
We can have more generic to more specific combinations. > Or are you trying to build something like omap3->am35xx->am3517 where you can > use omap3 as a more generic setting but still use am35xx for a slightly more > restrictive group that is still grouping like parts, and finally you use > am3517 for the exact part? Exactly so we avoid duplication stuff to boards or SoCs. Another example of use: imx -> mx6q -> mx6. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
