On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 13:24 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Maupin, Chase <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Maupin, Chase >> >> 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. > > As pointed out this already merged. > > I'd also point out that you can use MACHINEOVERRIDES directly to specify > additional machine overrides so I'm not sure there is much extra > complexity here that is really needed.
Yes I can do it using machine overrides but it does seem to be clear for someone reading the code if it is included in SOC_FAMILY. -- 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
