Hi, Pascal Hambourg <pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:39:18 +0200): > On 16/08/2024 at 00:27, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > On Thu Aug 15, 2024 at 10:24 PM CEST, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >> Then I guess a 16 MiB unused partition could be added to relevant > >> recipes. Now, which are the relevant recipes ? In other words, which > >> arch/subarch need it ? > > > >> recipes-armhf-efi (= recipes-amd64-efi) > >> recipes-armhf > >> recipes-arm64-efi (= recipes-amd64-efi) > >> recipes-arm64 (= recipes-armhf) > > > > Rockchip makes both 32bit as 64bit ARM SoCs, so `recipes-armhf` is > > relevant. > > If only Rockchip SoCs need the reserved partition and are detected as a > specific subarchitecture by archdetect, new specific recipes for this > subarchitecture could be added. > > > I don't know if it's common, but AFAIK you can use U-Boot with EFI, but > > it sounds 'weird' to add it to a recipe with AMD64 in its name... > > Indeed. If some ARM EFI platforms need the reserved partition, then one > of the recipes-arm*-efi symlinks could be replaced with a directory > containing new specific recipes and the other could be changed to point > to it.
As already noted by Pascal, we should separate this Rockchip issue into a separate bug. I will file a new one for this. Coming back to the main topic of this bug: since discussion has stalled, maybe it would be good, to have something, that people can test? Pascal, would you be able to form the proposed changes as they are currently into code for a patch or a merge request, maybe for amd64 only, for now? The details would be mostly as you stated in your first proposal, AFAICS. Thanks Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
