Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] kernel bbclass: recreate uImage unless KEEPUIMAGE is set

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>]

Op 28 apr. 2012, om 16:32 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:

> On 12-04-27 4:06 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> The intent of the uImage code in this class includes the following
>> 
>> 1) be able to specify custom load addresses without needing to patch the kernel
>> 2) add better information to the uImage description field
>> 
>> The current state is a NOP anyway, the kernel will always build a uImage when you tell it to 'make uImage'.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi<koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
>> ---
>>  meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> index b7e9f54..98320fe 100644
>> --- a/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta-oe/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ KERNEL_IMAGE_SYMLINK_NAME ?= "${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}-${MACHINE}"
>> 
>>  do_uboot_mkimage() {
>>  	if test "x${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}" = "xuImage" ; then
>> -		if test ! -e arch/${ARCH}/boot/uImage ; then
>> +		if test "x${KEEPUIMAGE}" = "x" ; then
> 
> I realize this is targeted meta-oe, and not directly to oe-core (but
> openembedded-core is cc'd + it's Saturday morning with no coffee here
> yet which means I may be misreading) .. so I thought I'd comment as
> this whizzed past.
> 
> The existing users on top of the oe-core class expect (whether they
> know it or not) the opposite of this (i.e. do nothing, get the kernel's
> uImage). To keep their old behaviour, they now need to explicitly set a
> flag. I know that I'd have quite a few layers to update if this went
> directly into oe-core.
> 
> How are the current meta-oe and related BSPs currently overriding
> the behaviour (I didn't go look, I'm invoking my Saturday morning clause
> again :) ? Is it a class override ? If so, can the layers that
> currently have an override set a flag (which is a simpler override) to
> get the behaviour they used to have, while leaving the boards with no
> override the behaviour that they used to have ?

"used to have" is quite vague, since the OE-classic behaviour is to always replace the uImage. And that's where I'm migrating machines from.