From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 13063E00AAF; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (max.oss.09[at]gmail.com) * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.214.174 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC70E00912 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id vt7so189247003obb.1 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:15:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iV0qWVLKNhnlT1XwfvKXa4j/VVhePO4qIIjWvvLBM6c=; b=i6vb68rIG1T8R47hQoZ+SBvOqmJ87sOO8j/SmglrpWXnGjEjHEItFQcY7Bx1XlKgza jEAB0i8cj4Fc7z+HWRKzU6D8viBl0CP+Bz2KsU+VxpTjp3CsyvuR7BKsxhvEIMlydjw4 NlVoQlaynTh26obdTzamj68PQLj63NEjC2a5fERhPb6Le1qqFd6gF9O9A0khq9r0qmf/ ItGhOFdDFqPTmEqf8C6jMCZ5I8ttn4l5Ew/2ihtA9K68iciF7zbtUWSyKwmWjZRusdQi C2VrdC0kpDtf8NsDN13i5X1aZZ82PwBQzjNEf7yrV8KJkZBbGCqf4mPLwj3Fkmci2OUU hTFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iV0qWVLKNhnlT1XwfvKXa4j/VVhePO4qIIjWvvLBM6c=; b=jJPAnf9XP2dexLaGq+xbKy1eTbwxmrypGjZVgMXovia0pqHSj7Lpsj2bKVIgUbIHcQ Co2k/vVrUdV2FliS1fxKspI/ne3f0aDR0ZDIulPtEIGfSfkUBuVi14uV9Wmo2G4aJb0a mFtfamwT4VwYKBXzCHZSugq+i5pz0lXO+L7dGw1znRprHAJQuULM4+e6klZIsw5pUMCW 77gNMmibd/0UlUCwdPTb+rCgdtBR1+NJ8D9PGkML1qEJ0OzDxdsTiYkdonf4VKNsT7Lx SPsmjwFf1XRW75gzOzVOfTqukL6wkkA2VzgxDEDflp0hIReYutGm1SSugvMvdEPeZiJh n7UQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/oXrhj5Azorazw6QAvyRxCsMhaz/zQxYGyznkHI40O2PH7Em685yDs8wkG6lnuBYZSJZ8UTjm+zYRIC3WCc5SYVW1Cg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.232.194 with SMTP id tq2mr23267657oec.64.1453216541069; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.191.135 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:15:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1453139502-13906-1-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br> <1453161146.2577.23.camel@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:15:41 +0100 Message-ID: From: Max Krummenacher To: Otavio Salvador Cc: meta-freescale Mailing List , Otavio Salvador Subject: Re: [meta-fsl-arm-extra PATCH] linux-toradex (3.14.28): Restrict recipe parsing for compatible machines X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:16:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Otavio 2016-01-19 15:15 GMT+01:00 Otavio Salvador : > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Max Krummenacher wrote: >> Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 15:51 -0200 schrieb Otavio Salvador: >>> While it is good, as design, allow for easier reuse of the recipe by >>> custom designs (specially SoM-based ones) it requires that we provide >>> common 'defconfig' files. >>> >> >> Wouldn't it then be better to provide such a common defconfig >> additionally? >> If yes I could prepare an alternative patch which adds >> recipes-kernel/linux/linux-toradex-3.14.28/defconfig >> instead of restricting compatible machine. >> I would probably take the current linux-fslc one to cover a greater >> range of drivers and options than what we use for our machines. > > This is indeed an option and I would appreciate it. One even better > one, in my POV, would be if both machines could use a single > defconfig. Would this be possible? > Yes this is possible, one is a subset of the other. I'm still not happy though about size etc. as I outlined in the discussion for the initial commit: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale/2015-December/016795.html If you have strong feelings towards the 'one size fits all' solution I might get persuaded (or pressed) to go for it. Max > -- > 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