Am 25.09.21 um 17:09 schrieb Trevor Woerner:
You'll need to re-send this with a better subject line and commit
message so the right people will notice it. Otherwise they'll think it's
meta-rockchip-specific.
If (when) this patch gets applied upstream, then we can remove our
work-around.
The
On Sat 2021-09-25 @ 09:56:21 AM, Markus Volk wrote:
>
> Am 23.09.21 um 22:55 schrieb Trevor Woerner:
> > We can add the --use-uuid line to the /boot entry if you really think it
> > should be mounted on boot, but we shouldn't use it on the others and cause
> > wic
> > to generate a bad fstab.
Am 23.09.21 um 22:55 schrieb Trevor Woerner:
We can add the --use-uuid line to the /boot entry if you really think it
should be mounted on boot, but we shouldn't use it on the others and cause wic
to generate a bad fstab. There are examples of other boards that don't mount
/boot by default
On Thu 2021-09-23 @ 09:46:40 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> are you both using systemd or sysvinit
Ah, good catch. I'm using sysvinit.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#54843): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/54843
Mute This
Am 24.09.21 um 06:46 schrieb Khem Raj:
are you both using systemd or sysvinit
I am using systemd
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#54841): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/54841
Mute This Topic:
are you both using systemd or sysvinit
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:26 PM Markus Volk wrote:
>
> I'm surprised mount doesn't complain about those first 5 lines! Those are not
> properly-formed fstab(5) entries.
>
> No, it doesn't. Those entries are ignored except /boot.
> One interesting thing: i
I'm surprised mount doesn't complain about those first 5 lines! Those are not
properly-formed fstab(5) entries.
No, it doesn't. Those entries are ignored except /boot.
One interesting thing: i always had that bunch of malformed fstab entries.
Before the change from static to uuid it looked like
On Thu 2021-09-23 @ 09:45:06 PM, Markus Volk wrote:
>
> Am 23.09.21 um 13:59 schrieb Trevor Woerner:
> > Curious. I boot tested my patch on multiple boards and I've built and booted
> > numerous images on my rock-pi-4b and rock64 boards in the last day or so
> > since
> > I applied the patch.
Am 23.09.21 um 13:59 schrieb Trevor Woerner:
Curious. I boot tested my patch on multiple boards and I've built and booted
numerous images on my rock-pi-4b and rock64 boards in the last day or so since
I applied the patch. I'll try some "clean" builds and see if that makes a
difference. I don't
On Wed 2021-09-22 @ 08:49:43 PM, Markus Volk wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Markus, thanks for your report. I appreciate the feedback!
> with this change my rock-pi-4 doesnt boot up and falls to emergency shell
> because wic includes wrong devices into fstab. For some reason it assumes
> /dev/sda1.
The next
Hi,
with this change my rock-pi-4 doesnt boot up and falls to emergency
shell because wic includes wrong devices into fstab. For some reason it
assumes /dev/sda1. I was able to fix this for my machine by using uuid
for all partitions.
diff --git a/wic/rockchip.wks b/wic/rockchip.wks
index
On Fri 2021-09-17 @ 06:01:21 PM, Trevor Woerner via lists.yoctoproject.org
wrote:
> Recent upstream kernel changes have made the mmc probing order unpredictable.
> Therefore, boards with both an emmc and sdmmc interface aren't guaranteed to
> boot with a hard-coded root device selected.
>
> For
Recent upstream kernel changes have made the mmc probing order unpredictable.
Therefore, boards with both an emmc and sdmmc interface aren't guaranteed to
boot with a hard-coded root device selected.
For example, on the rock64, with linux-yocto 5.10.y, using the uSD card (i.e.
the sdmmc
13 matches
Mail list logo
