[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH 1/3] u-boot-toradex: add U-Boot recipe for Toradex i.MX 6 based modules

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan at agner.ch> wrote:
> On 2015-12-03 10:49, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan at agner.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-03 10:28, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan at agner.ch> wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-03 10:17, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>> I prefer SoC family as it makes easier for end customers to customized
>>>>>> it without need to override the compatibility set in a bbappend. As
>>>>>> this provides a SoM it is common it ends being used in a custom
>>>>>> carrier board and eventually a new machine file in a customer layer
>>>>>> can reuse the recipe.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good point, so e.g. if somebody would need to alter the
>>>>> machine and would create a machine like apalis-imx6-mycarrier. We
>>>>> actually would need another inheritance like SoC, for boards/carrier
>>>>> boards...
>>>>
>>>> Yes but this can be add on the machine itself. The compatibile would
>>>> demand a bbappend usually.
>>>
>>> How can this be added? By using the module name "apalis-imx6" as
>>> SOC_FAMILY?
>>>
>>> In that case, a COMPATIBLE on module level would be good enough (e.g. as
>>> it is now, just apalis/colibri-imx6 would be the module level).
>>
>> Yes; so it is added to the MACHINEOVERRIDES and ends being used as
>> fallback. This is done for Wandboard in the past and I think is still
>> used for OLinuxIno boards.
>>
>
> I see.
>
>>> However, so far customization needs on machine level hasn't really come
>>> up so far. Customers typically use our default machines, and customize
>>> the image by other means...
>>
>> Yes but I see no problem in making it easier for end-users, do you?
>
> It would be a big change, since all machines are now called according to
> the module name. I guess you can't use the same name of a SOC level and
> a machine... Hence we would have to rename all machines... taking care
> of Documentation, etc...
>
> I guess we need to discuss this internally and look at things a little
> closer to understand the implications. Maybe we can postpone such a
> change?

Yes however please send the COMPATIBLE_MACHINES set for the SoC family
for now then. It helps and goes to the right direction.

-- 
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