[Buildroot] [PATCH] imx-lib: new package
Peter Korsgaard
jacmet at uclibc.org
Mon Dec 17 20:44:21 UTC 2012
>>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> writes:
Arnout> On 17/12/12 14:48, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote:
>> +if BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB
>> +choice
>> + prompt "i.MX platform"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX25_3STACK
>> + bool "imx25-3stack"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX27ADS
>> + bool "imx27ads"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX37_3STACK
>> + bool "imx37-3stack"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX50
>> + bool "imx50"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX51
>> + bool "imx51"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX53
>> + bool "imx53"
>> +
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_LIB_PLATFORM_IMX6Q
>> + bool "imx6q"
>> +
>> +endchoice
Arnout> Here's a second issue that I'd like to get some feedback on:
Arnout> gst-fsl-plugins also uses a PLATFORM definition, but the list of
Arnout> platforms is slightly different:
Arnout> MX28/MX233/MX25/MX27/MX31/MX35/MX37/MX51/MX53/MX50/MX5X/MX6
Arnout> Ideally the 'platform' should be defined only once, but where? Or
Arnout> should I add all the platforms to gst-fsl-plugins with a select of the
Arnout> appropriate imx-lib platform?
We once talked about adding a SoC selection to buildroot, but decided it
would be too much effort to maintain.
Is the gst-fsl-plugins stuff still needed now that the coda driver is in
mainline?
Arnout> I can only test the mx6q because that's the only one for which
Arnout> I have a board... Build-testing doesn't make a difference
Arnout> because all platforms use the same API.
I have access to mx28 / mx51 / mx53 / mx6q boards and could do some
testing during christmas.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list