On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:40:10PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 16:34 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:30:13PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 12:24 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > * this way we can use > > > > EXTRA_DRIMODULES_armv4t += ",glamo" in meta-openmoko layer and > > > > EXTRA_DRIMODULES_armv4t += ",foo" in meta-bar layer without knowledge > > > > of other modules in other layers in stack > > > > > > Is this really better than using "DRIMODULES_append_armv4t = ..."? > > > > the point is that you don't need to know who is setting swrast there for > > armv4t... > > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. Can you be more > concrete? > > > > > > > It's not really true that you can do it without any knowledge of what > > > other layers are doing since if you end up with two competing > > > EXTRA_DRIMODULES_foo overrides then one of them will get lost. > > > > > > > so EXTRA_DRIMODULES_append_armv4t should be fine, right? > > Well, yes, but in that case it doesn't seem as though the EXTRA_ bit > (and this patch) buys anything.
OK, forget this patch.. I've forgot this behavior of _append_armv4t syntax.. and I've changed meta-openmoko to use this too. can we change x86 and x86-64 examples in mesa-dri.inc to DRIDRIVERS_append_x86 = ",i915,i965" DRIDRIVERS_append_x86-64 = ",i915,i965" so it will work as example for BSP layer maintainers that thay don't need to care about setting DRIDRIVERS = "swrast" for their arch? Regards, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
