On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon <ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote: > > On 02/05/2014 14:07, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon >> <ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon >>>> <ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a >>>>> flag is behaving as you would expect it to, >>>>> or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG >>>>> isn't defined? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance for any advice, >>>> I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which >>>> is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. >>>> >>>> The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in >>>> the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the >>>> value was different from newer releases. >>>> >>>> In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the >>>> UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. >>>> >>> If I have to do that, then I have to do that. >>> >>> However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the >>> meta-fsl-arm >>> layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend >>> the time >>> right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as >>> I will be moving >>> up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. >>> >>> Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe? >> You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I >> do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than >> fixing it. > > Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass > such that > it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG > which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the > problem ?
Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967 >> Comment the UBOOT_MACHINE setting in the u-boot-imx recipe and move >> on. The log is clear you're not setting the PREFERRED_VERSION >> accordingly and you should. >> > > You've lost me. Why am I not setting PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly? I have > two recipes in the checkout and I have configured prefer the older one, > which > seems entirely reasonable. Your log say's it looks for u-boot-imx 2013.04 and not for 2009.08. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto