> > is that what you were after?
> override is the first thing that crossed my mind...
Thanks both of you, an additional machine override was exactly what we needed.
Best regards, Olli
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
Bonsoir,
> > > We’ve a product group with different devices, each having their
> > > machine-conf, eg
> > >
> > > Device_a
> > >
> > > Device_a_mini
> > >
> > > Device_b
> > >
> > > Device_b_mini <- Upcoming
> > >
> > > Device_c <- Upcoming
> > i know i did this once upon a time using the
On Fri, 3 May 2019, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019, Westermann, Oliver wrote:
>
> > We’ve a product group with different devices, each having their
> > machine-conf, eg
> >
> > Device_a
> >
> > Device_a_mini
> >
> > Device_b
> >
> > Device_b_mini <- Upcoming
> >
> > Device_c <-
On Fri, 3 May 2019, Westermann, Oliver wrote:
> We’ve a product group with different devices, each having their
> machine-conf, eg
>
> Device_a
>
> Device_a_mini
>
> Device_b
>
> Device_b_mini <- Upcoming
>
> Device_c <- Upcoming
>
> Since device_a and device_a_mini share a lot of code, for them
Hey,
We've a product group with different devices, each having their machine-conf, eg
Device_a
Device_a_mini
Device_b
Device_b_mini <- Upcoming
Device_c <- Upcoming
Since device_a and device_a_mini share a lot of code, for them we use one of
the machine overrides, describing the processor
