From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.yoctoproject.org (mail.yoctoproject.org [198.145.29.25]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.752.1616427075922585977 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:31:16 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="unable to parse pub key" header.i=@blade-group.com header.s=google header.b=IVDVz4hP; spf=softfail (domain: blade-group.com, ip: 198.145.29.25, mailfrom: yann.dirson@blade-group.com) Received: from mail-vs1-f43.google.com (mail-vs1-f43.google.com [209.85.217.43]) by mail.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1681D38C05F8 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f43.google.com with SMTP id z68so7667820vsb.10 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blade-group.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AfGq0c2NWyUPk7pTxXT00M8G19wOHKkHkk97aqiQXuQ=; b=IVDVz4hPWFT+2tPKVnHJM9HRYHxrYC3JlFVrAkKxudQGtNfXGTnJoAmvr6CxU4tQcG Qm4TZaJ8EDAWSl6IXeOJebBsiWOZHkFNEnawBuPugNkC8Urv/2+RhO94fkdSGWAl59k1 whj5mVG4SJQ3hOa57ED8X9mOBAH62p6Q88gCL8MXbdgSpSXuV8KdxJgpZDflMe0qNXQi /K1foXbcWXEACzrahyUMKZfKtTGxRXNWM7rg4bsaSm92umFr8KgWJU1EBy8ySAzF22C6 NYL/gvC4GSkYdaqLnj0LQky89/YttVDPNIrGAg1E5pHl49EWc96V5etd9ibY8NGKy+FI 3ocQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AfGq0c2NWyUPk7pTxXT00M8G19wOHKkHkk97aqiQXuQ=; b=FzG2Uzx+dZ5jauq/NiQXumw4mf0yq8Wtn+UPFrRoxmGYsSZiTDo6Z+2rbwdw2JI092 T4najEwoVReiP3Fo4D537gY0F6MlmVcL/x8POEG6v1xSBRLhUOoq7TUtLHCAP/hFmnYI FYoqn/TrAd9aUEjDJoZemDZTACh7wDq3jCOKKvQ1O4FECTTcrgTtXDc1yVt/H1m+2s42 LXCW3e2N7pl34W6GWTBIgWmVt5y+KQkI0R+nY/vm4ax7z+WflMqbqyKPoMxRSNtssX6P 3dOxjkdugFfJEu9v86jDBSylBY8NnIQ996w+NHlmfvwfwIwvGNcVSIHfhnZeowsjNOyO C8gQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qUMm5tcTGkjZKEEXcpXBjNi7+sz92wn9t7ZhYqyUs1JCdJ+s4 EK9UBoi6s7WSSWYc10inljU8dwGfm1o/Ea9447k7ig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZKVsPaqmpG2CuI98YFDJKtNEk/+haX44BuJaZ2gNZdEZJ+SBKA7QKkYctDSq6FNCjXOWkCl3u4dECIVXoFto= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3a06:: with SMTP id b6mr302982vsu.21.1616427074102; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210322134212.576790-1-yann@blade-group.com> <20210322144753.GA33662@localhost> <166EB22A27C12C43.28220@lists.yoctoproject.org> In-Reply-To: <166EB22A27C12C43.28220@lists.yoctoproject.org> From: "Yann Dirson" Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:31:01 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [yocto] [meta-rockchip][PATCH] Add machine definitions for NanoPi-M4 boards To: Yann Dirson Cc: Trevor Woerner , Yocto discussion list , Yann Dirson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BTW, I'm also unclear on what to do next to better support those boards: with the default kernel config only a subset of the hardware is supported, and for state-of-the-art hw support we'll also need patches not yet in upstream kernel (from eg. armbian and libreelec). I feel it would be good to provide defconfig files for those machines, but then there are several options to handle that. Would a minimal hw-focused defconfig suitable for `KCONFIG_MODE =3D "--allnoconfig"` be a good option ? Le lun. 22 mars 2021 =C3=A0 16:00, Yann Dirson via lists.yoctoproject.org a =C3=A9crit : > > Hi Trevor, > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 =C3=A0 15:47, Trevor Woerner a= =C3=A9crit : > > On Mon 2021-03-22 @ 02:42:12 PM, yann.dirson@blade-group.com wrote: > > > This supports both the 2GB and 4GB versions of the board. This is n= ot > > > done with 2 different machine definitions since only u-boot has to > > > change between those two configurations, but with a NANOPIM4_HW vari= able > > > to set in local.conf. > > > > Traditionally in meta-rockchip this is done using two separate machine= files > > with all the common things factored into a common include file. See > > tinker-board and tinker-board-s as well as all the rock-pi-4* definiti= ons for > > examples. > > > > I would prefer if the same thing was done here. > > Damned that was how I did my first patch, I just felt it was much > better this way :( > > Digging up that original commit re rerolling. > > > Wouldn't it be useful to have a standard way to specify such hardware > variants, that > would be recognized as such by the layer index ? > > > > -- > Yann Dirson > Blade / Shadow -- http://shadow.tech > >=20 > --=20 Yann Dirson Blade / Shadow -- http://shadow.tech