[oe] SOC_FAMILY broken
fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com
Thu Sep 2 08:41:54 CEST 2010
2010/9/2 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <mickey at vanille-media.de>:
> Am Mittwoch, den 01.09.2010, 23:22 +0200 schrieb Leon Woestenberg:
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>> <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Root cause: if SOC_FAMILY is not set (awhich is the case for most
>> > MACHINEs and all distro's except angstrom) the test in base.bbclass
>> Good point, but I never understood SOC_FAMILY. From an old email:
>> "SOC_FAMILY is defining a family of processors and the features that processor
>> has. Whereas MACHINE_CLASS is defining a type of device and its features which
>> can use different processors."
>> I think the first sentence is contradicting itself.
>> A "family of processors" vs. "features that processor had". This can
>> be fully orthogonal (worst case),
>> so the definition of the variable is crap. I wonder, has it proven
>> more useful than cumbersome?
> I still don't know why we need both SOC_FAMILY and MACHINE_CLASS in the
> first place. MACHINE_CLASS has been around for much longer and if you
> look how it's being used or intended to use, you see that there are
> hardly any processor differences in the members of those classes (e.g.
> openezx, qualcomm msm7, om-gta01/02, clamshell zaurus models, ...).
> I'm still unconvinced that we need both variables.
Neither do I.
Also it has been requested during the review (if I recall correctly by
Tom) to provide documentation, but sadly enough that review comment
was ignored and the change pushed anyway.
Perhaps we should make explicit that the introduction of a new user
var also must come with the associated documentation.
More information about the Openembedded-devel