[oe] RFC: kernel.bbclass and collie changes

[Richard Purdie]

On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 11:48 +0200, Thomas Kunze wrote:
> Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 01:56 +0200, Thomas Kunze wrote:
> >   
> >> +/dev/mmcblk0p1	b	6600	0	6	179	1	-	-	-
> >>     
> >
> > Is that "6600" really correct?
> >   
> Of course not. Just a typo.
> > It does also seem bit odd having an mmc device in the "minimal" device
> > table.  I can understand why you need it on collie but I am not sure it
> > is all that desirable for device-table-minimal.txt to become the union
> > of the devices that everybody needs on their favourite platform for
> > booting purposes.  Since this is truly a machine specific thing I would
> > be inclined to use a separate file, or a collie-specific catenation onto
> > the installed copy.
> >   
> I see your point. But OTOH we have 20 hda*, 9 serial consoles and 16 mtd
> nodes in there. So its hardly minimal. In my opinion it doesn't hurt to add
> a further node.

As mentioned on irc, there is a more fundamental problem. The mmc block
device number is assigned from the dynamic pool, not the static one. If
you have any other device which uses a dynamic block number the file
becomes incorrect. You therefore really have to create these nodes using
udev/mdev or some custom script which finds the right value from sysfs.

Regards,

Richard