> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com> wrote: > > Both "arc" and "xtensa" are valid Linux architectures, add > them into valid_archs table. > > Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky <juro.bystri...@intel.com> > --- > meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass > b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass > index 8a4bef1..ea976c6 100644 > --- a/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass > +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ valid_archs = "alpha cris ia64 \ > parisc s390 v850 \ > avr32 blackfin \ > microblaze \ > - nios2" > + nios2 arc xtensa”
there parisc etc as well so in essence patch is ok but I wonder if we should remove the arches we dont actively support in OE or extended OE ecosystem. > > def map_kernel_arch(a, d): > import re > -- > 2.7.4 > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
