[meta-freescale] SOC_FAMILY Rework

[Daiane Angolini]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster at mail.bg> wrote:
> Hi Daiane,
>
> On 07/09/2015 05:54 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>>>
>>> It does not work. The point of OVERRIDE is to make changes in a set of
>>> SoCs and we cannot contaminate other BSP (Intel, TI, Samsung,
>>> Qualcomm...)
>>
>>
>> GPU is a SoC characteristic, and it's obvious it's the most important
>> BSP piece on i.MX6 family. Instead of having a tree like:
>>
>> imx -> imx6 -> everysingle soc
>>
>> We could have something like:
>>
>> imx -> imx6-light -> ligh socs
>> imx -> imx6-heavy -> heavy socs
>>
>> and, instead of list "everysingle soc" when setting GPU BSP, we can
>> list only "light and heavy".
>>
>> The downside is to list "light and heavy" in packages for imx6
>>
>>
>> I don't see how it will contaminate other BSP. I'm trying to stress
>> the imx OVERRIDE just included.
>
>
> This is an excellent example. The OVERRIDEs should generalize, not
> specialize (although you can always interpret a root-leaf traversal as
> a specialization :D). Detailed specialization will lead to OVERRIDEs
> tree explosion while trying to express every single SOC feature on each
> level of the tree.

The problem is that the i.MX6 shares only the name and the core. And
share the core is nothing (as i.MX can share the ARM core of any other
product in the world)

It's like i.MX6UL was the adopted brother. It shares the name but no
genetic features.

Of course we can use the marketing name on OVERRIDE, but I would
prefer if we focus on the SoC convergence instead.


>
> If we try to express SOC features via OVERRIDE mechanism, it's imho
> doomed.

I have a crush on philosophy, so I apologize in advance. But i.MX is
basicaly it's GPU. Mainly if you think about i.MX6. Represent GPU
characteristics on OVERRIDE is not represent a feature, but a core
feature.

However, I remember Otavio's argument i.MX6 is the exception now, not the rule.

Daiane
>
> Regards,
> Nikolay