[Buildroot] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 1/9] package/nxp: new package directory
olteanv at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 10:04:05 UTC 2020
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 11:51, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:44:24 +0200
> Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This seems to be a duplication of the FREESCALE_IMX_EXTRACT_HELPER, isn't
> > > > it?
> > > > Do we then can remove the other one and use only the new "nxp" one?
> > > >
> > > > By the way is there a plan to move all NXP specific packages (qoriq and imx) to
> > > > the nxp subdir?
> > > Yes, the helper is the duplication of FREESCALE_IMX_EXTRACT_HELPER.
> > > Because Freescale is merged into NXP a few years ago, according to NXP's policy, we need to use nxp, instead of freescale.
> > > So, I think the packages related NXP should be move into nxp directory.
> > >
> > Is it really NXP policy though?
> > The thing is that LS1028A and several other boards are already
> > supported by some downstream Buildroot patches, so it makes sense to
> > keep using the folder names that we have there, i.e. "nxp" instead of
> > changing to "freescale".
> The proposal is not to change from nxp to freescale, but the opposite.
It depends on perspective, but I guess you already got the point.
> However, I think it's good to keep in mind that NXP's policy applies to
> whatever NXP does. The Buildroot project is independent and is not
> forced in any way to comply with NXP policies.
Not trying to suggest otherwise, just to explain why the freescale ->
nxp name change took place between Jerry's v2 and v3 of this patch
series. The arguments have been brought on both sides, I don't think
it's a big deal either way as long as the naming between device
families is consistent and there isn't any unjustified duplication, so
I'll just let Jerry make a decision one way or another.
> Best regards,
> Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
More information about the buildroot