[OE-core] [PATCH 2/9] kernel.bbclass: move uImage handling to separate task

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If no one minds the tiny bit of extra complexity, this was the approach that I
> was thinking about when reading this thread.
>
> I can report for fact, that the uImages that were being generated by
> the existing
> rules were binary blobs of silent boot death on the powerpc boards that I was
> using during initial development. The in tree images worked perfectly.
>
> For everything I've done in the past, I've always used in tree uImages
> or patched the
> kernel tree itself to generated images that worked for the board in question.
>
> The difference in approach could likely be chalked up to a guy just
> trying to get a
> kernel to boot, and someone working more closely with the bootloader -> kernel
> handoff.
>
> I think a variable, or some other switch, to support the two workflows
> is a reasonable
> compromise.

Part of the history[1], and I was surprised at the time too, was that
for ARM at least, rmk had said that you should not use the uImages
generated by the kernel.  So the question is, has this changed?  Is
this an ARM-only thing?

[1]: http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2008-November/007096.html

-- 
Tom