On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 14:40 +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: > On 10/20/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 13:55 +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: > >> The short version of my question: Can I define a "level" that goes beyond > >> MACHINE? > >> > >> My problem in detail (and I suspect there are more systems with similar > >> problems): > >> > >> I have an SOC called "topic-miami". There are currently two variants: The > >> 7015 > >> and 7030. They are identical but for one component: They have a different > >> FPGA > >> part (the 7030 is bigger and faster). > >> Both run exactly the same kernel and bootloader, and all other software and > >> libraries are exactly the same. > >> > >> Currently I have MACHINE="topic-miami-7015" and then > >> SOC_FAMILY="topic-miami" > >> so I can use "topic-miami" as override word for all packages. > >> > >> However, this means I get two kernels, two bootloaders, etc. even though > >> they > >> are exactly the same. > >> > >> The only package that currently differs is the one that delivers the > >> bitstream(s) for the FPGA. These are big, too big to fit bitstreams for > >> both > >> models into flash and leave room for applications, so just installing both > >> into the rootfs and pick the correct one at boot time is not really an > >> option. > >> > >> Maybe I could define some extra PACKAGE_ARCH for the bitstreams (which make > >> sense, as this is sort of firmware for a different platform). But how > >> would a > >> user then pick the right value for this variable, since MACHINE seems to be > >> the only thing he can really choose? > >> > >> Any thoughts and ideas are welcome... > > > > One possible solution would be to inject another PACKAGE_ARCH (as the > > intel gmgd graphics does for example), then mark the MACHINE specific > > packages as being that package architecture. They'd then only get built > > once per package architecture yet your bitstreams would still be machine > > specific. You could probably do the "remarking" using anonymous python > > injected at the machine level. > > Sounds doable, but I can't find anything about "intel gmgd" in any layer. > Which machine are you referring to here?
Sorry, emgd: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/tree/classes/emgd-gl.bbclass?h=daisy http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/tree/conf/machine/include/meta-intel-emgd.inc?h=daisy I have actually sent Scott some text for the manual about this but its not been edited yet. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
