[OE-core] [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] kernel bbclass: recreate uImage unless KEEPUIMAGE is set

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 28 apr. 2012, om 16:32 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 12-04-27 4:06 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> The intent of the uImage code in this class includes the following
>>>
>>> 1) be able to specify custom load addresses without needing to patch the kernel
>>> 2) add better information to the uImage description field
>>>
>>> The current state is a NOP anyway, the kernel will always build a uImage when you tell it to 'make uImage'.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi<koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>> ---
>>>  meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass |    2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> index b7e9f54..98320fe 100644
>>> --- a/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ KERNEL_IMAGE_SYMLINK_NAME ?= "${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}-${MACHINE}"
>>>
>>>  do_uboot_mkimage() {
>>>      if test "x${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}" = "xuImage" ; then
>>> -            if test ! -e arch/${ARCH}/boot/uImage ; then
>>> +            if test "x${KEEPUIMAGE}" = "x" ; then
>>
>> I realize this is targeted meta-oe, and not directly to oe-core (but
>> openembedded-core is cc'd + it's Saturday morning with no coffee here
>> yet which means I may be misreading) .. so I thought I'd comment as
>> this whizzed past.
>>
>> The existing users on top of the oe-core class expect (whether they
>> know it or not) the opposite of this (i.e. do nothing, get the kernel's
>> uImage). To keep their old behaviour, they now need to explicitly set a
>> flag. I know that I'd have quite a few layers to update if this went
>> directly into oe-core.
>>
>> How are the current meta-oe and related BSPs currently overriding
>> the behaviour (I didn't go look, I'm invoking my Saturday morning clause
>> again :) ? Is it a class override ? If so, can the layers that
>> currently have an override set a flag (which is a simpler override) to
>> get the behaviour they used to have, while leaving the boards with no
>> override the behaviour that they used to have ?
>
> "used to have" is quite vague, since the OE-classic behaviour is to always replace the uImage. And that's where I'm migrating machines from.

That's why I referenced oe-core, that's all I'm talking about. It's
behaviour for
every tagged release has been what I'm talking about. This is a change in
that behaviour, and if that's the intended target for this, it is relevant.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"