[meta-freescale] [3rdparty][PATCH v2] u-boot-boundary-fw-utils: Build cross recipe

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:22 AM Gary Bisson <gary.bisson at boundarydevices.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:07 AM Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-boundary-fw-utils_2018.07.bb | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-boundary-fw-utils_2018.07.bb
> b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-boundary-fw-utils_2018.07.bb
> > index 0a7697a..804a504 100644
> > --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-boundary-fw-utils_2018.07.bb
> > +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-boundary-fw-utils_2018.07.bb
> > @@ -44,4 +44,5 @@ RPROVIDES_${PN} += "u-boot-fw-utils"
> >  BBCLASSEXTEND = "cross"
> >
> >  COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(imx)"
> > -COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_class-cross = "(.*)"
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_class-cross_arm = "(.*)"
> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE_class-cross_aarch64 = "(.*)"
>
> Sorry for the dumb question but why is class-cross needed in the first
> place? Isn't MACHINE = (imx) sufficient to only target imx platforms
> which can only be arm/arm64.


Honestly I don’t know what the usecase is I am just trying to avoid the
spill it’s having for non arm machines

Ideally native recipe should have been enough but since I am not using it
someone who has a usecase should chime in and probably just delete the
cross portion

>
>
> Regards,
> Gary
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale/attachments/20181023/ceda662b/attachment.html>