On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 19:45 +0800, He Zhe wrote: > On 07/31/2015 07:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:29 +0800, He Zhe wrote: > >> On 07/21/2015 10:53 PM, Christopher Larson wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:23 AM, <zhe...@windriver.com > >>> <mailto:zhe...@windriver.com>>wrote: > >>> > >>> From: He Zhe <zhe...@windriver.com <mailto:zhe...@windriver.com>> > >>> > >>> To support building packaging and installing multi types of kernel > >>> images, such as zImage uImage, at one time define KERNEL_IMAGETYPE > >>> as a list. > >>> Modify wherever reference KERNEL_IMAGETYPE accordingly. > >>> > >>> Fixes [YOCTO #6945]. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: He Zhe <zhe...@windriver.com > >>> <mailto:zhe...@windriver.com>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Question, why not add KERNEL_IMAGETYPES, and make KERNEL_IMAGETYPE equal > >>> to your new KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0? > >> Adding a new KERNEL_IMAGETYPES will also work. But it should be better > >> not to change the name of KERNEL_IMAGETYPE, so that those who have > >> used it don't have to change their code. > >> > >> Thank you for reviewing. > > I have to agree with Chris here, keeping KERNEL_IMAGETYPE as used today > > and equivalent to KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0 and adding KERNEL_IMAGETYPES does > > seem like a cleaner way to implement this. > > But it might mean we are going to check both KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and > KERNEL_IMAGETYPES > to generate final image type list. Is that OK?
Well, in some places you will use one and in some places you'll use the other, that is unavoidable. I much prefer "KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_IMAGETYPES" to "KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0 and KERNEL_IMAGETYPE" as variable names though. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
