On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:48:38PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 13:17 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > > FWIW, minimal is using MACHINE_CLASS since quite a while to > > reduce the need for adding the same files over and over again, > > this is being used e.g. for HTC msm7 series and OpenEZX series > > (see conf/machine/include). > > > > Perhaps it's time to standardize something like that. > > Yeah. I certainly don't think we want a proliferation of such > mechanisms. If minimal is already using MACHINE_CLASS then there would > be some sense in trying to make use of the same thing. > > Failing that though, testing COMPATIBLE_MACHINE against MACHINE_CLASS > probably is more desirable than adding a completely new variable (i.e. > SOC_FAMILY) for that purpose.
Phil, Re: "adding a completely new variable" - SOC_FAMILY has been in use for almost a year now. I'm hearing about MACHINE_CLASS for the first time, although it appears to be slightly older than SOC_FAMILY though. But it doesn't seem to be used anywhere besides in few machine configs and micro.conf. There are no recipes actually using it, unlike SOC_FAMILY... I'm not saying one is better than the other (actually, unifying them would be nice), I'm just saying it's too late to object adding SOC_FAMILY... -- Denys _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
