On 12/19/2011 12:13 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 18 dec. 2011, om 20:47 heeft Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov het volgende geschreven:
As per org.oe.dev and meta-oe's kernel.bbclass move uImage creation to
separate task from do_deploy. This way the do_install task can also
benefit from generated uImage.
The only major feature of oe-core's version (not to recreate uImage
if it exists) is retained in this patch.
I still don't agree with that behaviour. The in-kernel uImage code is just like
the in-kernel defconfigs: useless for people who aren't kernel developers.
Koen, that was addressed with KERNEL_RECREATE_UIMAGE variable.
Probably I should document it somewhere (in the commit message?
documentation.conf? smwh. else?). Would you agree with this patch + docs?
On the contra, as this version
was merged from meta-oe/org.oe.dev, new function has another feature:
it permits overriding the u-boot entrypoint via u-boot symbol.
No it doesn't, since it doesn't recreate uImage.
It does.
BTW: I don't have much experience of uImage usage on ARM SoCs (I used
them only on Atmel boards, where things usually 'just worked' regarding
Kernel load address & Ko). On PowerPC I also didn't have too much
problems with upstream kernels (both from Linus'es tree and from
Freescale's one).
I understand your concern, that for your tasks, you have to recreate
uImage using your sane values. However for some people sane values are
ones present in upstream tree. Moreover, if you care about history, it
was specially changed in oe-core not to recreate uImage, as it caused
problems for some of the users.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
