re: Guidelines for choosing MACHINE & MACHINE_ARCH?

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

David Holland writes:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:48:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>  > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:58:34PM -0300, Leandro Santi wrote:
>  > > A quick look at build.sh shows that one of the first things that
>  > > needs to be done is to map the MACHINE name to the CPU architecture
>  > > name, i.e. MACHINE_ARCH. I noticed that some ports set
>  > > MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH, but some others don't. Which leads me to the
>  > > following: what are the guidelines for choosing these names?
>  > 
>  > If reasonably possible, use MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH=whatever config.guess
>  > uses for the platform. A lot of the different MACHINE values are due to
>  > historical reasons annd wouldn't happen again.
> 
> I think keeping evb* for boards makes sense, though.

i dunno.

i don't see what it adds.  in particular, "evb" means evaluation
board, and there are heaps of things in evb* that are *not*
evaluation boards, but stuff that might have once been once.

i wish we'd just collapse as much as possible back to plain old
MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH=whatever.  i just don't see any value or
validity in "evb".  is ERLITE an evaluation board?  what about
the RPI or CUBIE* systems?  they come pretty complete AFAICT,
designed as end-user systems, not what we used to consider as
being "evalation boards".


.mrg.