[OE-core] is INITRAMFS_TASK still useful, or can it be tossed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >
> >   just noticed the following -- here's snippets from kernel.bbclass:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> > INITRAMFS_TASK ?= ""
> > ... snip ...
> >     # NOTE: setting INITRAMFS_TASK is for backward compatibility
> >     #       The preferred method is to set INITRAMFS_IMAGE, because
> >     #       this INITRAMFS_TASK has circular dependency problems
> >     #       if the initramfs requires kernel modules
> >     image_task = d.getVar('INITRAMFS_TASK', True)
> >     if image_task:
> >         d.appendVarFlag('do_configure', 'depends', ' ${INITRAMFS_TASK}')
> >     ... snip ...
> >         if [ "$use_alternate_initrd" = "" ] && [ "${INITRAMFS_TASK}" != "" ] ; then
> >                 # The old style way of copying an prebuilt image and building it
> >                 # is turned on via INTIRAMFS_TASK != ""
> >     ... snip ...
> >
> >   i have about a dozen layers checked out and the only other place i
> > see that variable used is:
> >
> > meta-oe/meta-initramfs/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny-kexecboot_3.10.bb:
> >   INITRAMFS_TASK = "${INITRAMFS_IMAGE}:do_rootfs"
>
> check meta-handheld, it was an existing use case we didn't want to break.

  ah, that wasn't one of the layers i had checked out, thanks.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================