Owain Davies wrote:
I read their review, I am not sure that PRODUCT_SEPOLICY_* wouldn't have
been a good idea. I don't know why they did not like it.
The current guidance is to make a device tree per product and
inherit from the main device, this is how tuna, maguro, etc use to work.
So, let me check I have this write. If I am building for hammerhead and
flounder then the original files are are at:
- device/lge/hammerhead
- device/htc/flounder
If my product is creatively name "myprod" I would create the following tree:
- device/myprod/common
-- BoardConfigPartial.mk
- device/myprod/hammerhead
-- AndroidProducts.mk
-- BoardConfig.mk
- device/myprod/flounder
-- AndroidProducts.mk
-- BoardConfig.mk
Then have each devices BoardConfig and AndroidProducts.mk inherit their
respective parents makefile and include my product specific files as
well? Then could I just put the BOARD_SEPOLICY_UNION setting in
BoardConfigPartial.mk.
How does the build system determine which BoardConfig.mk to use? If I
were to lunch the aosp_hammerhead product rather than the
myprod_hammerhead product how would it know not to use the
BoardConfig.mk files in the myprod tree?
if you lunch aosp_hammerhead then it is correct to not use your
BoardConfig. Yours should only be used with the correct lunch target.
We haven't done policy development in an AOSP tree for a while but it
looks like they put multiple variants inside the device tree now:
device/lge/hammerhead/AndroidProducts.mk
So, you may be able to add yours there, include aosp_hammerhead.mk, and
add your BOARD_SEPOLICY_UNION += files...
I have not done this though, so no promises.
Sorry if this is very obvious.
Thanks,
Owain
_______________________________________________
Seandroid-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected].
To get help, send an email containing "help" to
[email protected].
