On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:41 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
[snip]
> > That said, mkimage -A arm is bad. UBOOT_ARCH is right,
>
> Good point. Total agreement.
>
> > and comes from kernel-arch.bbclass. So, I
> > think a full patch would need to add in changes to image.bbclass to
>
Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:43 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
>
>> Steffen Sledz wrote:
>>
>>> Initrds need to be prepared with mkimage to be usable from u-boot.
>>> The following patch introduces an additional IMAGE_FSTYPE .cpio.gz.u-boot
>>> for this (at the moment just for hi
Tom Rini wrote:
>> Initrds need to be prepared with mkimage to be usable from u-boot.
>> The following patch introduces an additional IMAGE_FSTYPE .cpio.gz.u-boot
>> for this (at the moment just for hipox machine).
>>
>> Is this the way it should be done?
>>
>> Should this better become part of con
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:43 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
> Steffen Sledz wrote:
> > Initrds need to be prepared with mkimage to be usable from u-boot.
> > The following patch introduces an additional IMAGE_FSTYPE .cpio.gz.u-boot
> > for this (at the moment just for hipox machine).
> >
> > Is this t
Steffen Sledz wrote:
> Initrds need to be prepared with mkimage to be usable from u-boot.
> The following patch introduces an additional IMAGE_FSTYPE .cpio.gz.u-boot
> for this (at the moment just for hipox machine).
>
> Is this the way it should be done?
>
> Should this better become part of con
Initrds need to be prepared with mkimage to be usable from u-boot.
The following patch introduces an additional IMAGE_FSTYPE .cpio.gz.u-boot
for this (at the moment just for hipox machine).
Is this the way it should be done?
Should this better become part of conf/bitbake.conf?
Steffen
