>-----Original Message----- >From: yocto-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto- >boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Chris Tapp >Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:59 AM >To: Bruce Ashfield >Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Project >Subject: Re: [yocto] Meta Intel / Cedartrail / Denzil - how to get unionfs in >the >kernel > >On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:41, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Chris Tapp <opensou...@keylevel.com> >wrote: >>> On 7 Oct 2012, at 03:00, Saxena, Rahul wrote: >>> >>>> Try adding the unionfs feature (below) to your kernel: >>>> >>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/linux-yocto- >3.0/tree/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/unionfs?h=meta >>>> >>>> create a file my_cedartrail.scc with following line: >>>> include features/unionfs/unionfs.scc >>>> >>>> put this file in a dir linux-yocto, the dir being created in >>>> >>>> meta-cedartrail/recipes-kernel/linux >>>> >>>> add following line in meta-cedartrail/recipes-kernel/Linux/linux- >yocto_3.0.bbappend >>>> >>>> SRC_URI +="file://my_cedartrail.scc" >>> >>> Thanks - I thought just running 'menuconfig' would allow me to enable it >(for a quick test). >>> >>> However, this still doesn't seem to be working. I can see that >'my_cedartrail.scc' gets fetched in to the build area, but I still don't see >CONFIG_UNION_FS if I run 'menuconfig'. There is also no 'unionfs' folder in >fs/ of the build tree. >>> >>> Also, if I specify an invalid feature (e.g. feature2/unionfs/unionfs.scc) >>> I'm >not seeing any diagnostic. >> >> unionfs was never merged to the 3.0 kernel, I re-added it to the >development >> trees for 3.2 and the 3.4 kernel (aufs for the 3.6 tree at the moment). The >meta >> data is carried forward from the older kernels as a placeholder and is >> documented >> in the .scc file itself: >> >> ----------------------- >> kconf non-hardware unionfs.cfg >> >> # commented pending update to a newer version ported to 2.6.35+ >> # patch unionfs-2.5.4-integration.patch >> ----------------------- >> >> So to get unionfs in the 3.0 kernel, we'd need a port .. but since >> we've moved on >> quite a bit past 3.0, I don't know of any pending ports myself. > >Thanks Bruce. > >I guess I need to ask the Intel guys if there are any plans to move Cedartrail >on >from 3.0 ?
If the interest is to have unionfs, you can still get it from 3.2 or 3.4 Kernel. But the downside is you will be missing the PVR Graphics and will be falling back to the basic vesa graphics mode. PVR graphics has support only for 3.0 kernel only, so we had only put the 3.0 kernel recipe in the meta-intel. We do not have plans to port PVR graphics to 3.4 kernel. We can update the Cedartrail BSP to have 3.2 and 3.4 kernel but it will be vesa graphics support only. Thanks Kishore. _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
