> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:24 AM > To: Maupin, Chase > Cc: Denys Dmytriyenko; Patches and discussions about the oe-core > layer > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] soc-family: fix SOC_FAMILY > override order > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Maupin, Chase > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Otavio > Salvador > >> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 6:11 AM > >> To: Maupin, Chase > >> Cc: Denys Dmytriyenko; 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 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. > > > > I see. This could be of some use and I'll play with it. This > should not be required though for this patch since right now I > want to fix the order issue. Any objection to the patch as is? > > No; not really. I just wanted to ask if you could look at it as > well > so we can have it working. It does make things much easier for > all us.
Sure. Btw, I noticed a weirdness when looking at this where the COMPATIBLE_MACHINE being evaluated evaulated/matched only has to be a substring of the SOC family to work. For example if I have: MACHINE = omap5-evm SOC_FAMILY = omap-a15 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = omap Then this will work because "omap" (the COMPATIBLE_MACHINE) is a substring of SOC_FAMILY (and technically also a substring of omap5-evm) Even setting COMPATIBLE_MACHINE to omap- will work because that is a substring of omap-a15. So the "match" operation is not really precise enough. I'm wondering if this needs to be changed to do an exact match. > > -- > 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
