Re: [PATCH 4/7] kernel: Pull uImage generation into separate class

From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
To: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
Cc: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>,
	openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] kernel: Pull uImage generation into separate class
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:28:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201410220128.44782.marex@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84924DE0-BBAC-45C0-B0B3-66A3EB6841CC@dominion.thruhere.net>

On Monday, October 20, 2014 at 12:26:04 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Op 19 okt. 2014, om 21:15 heeft Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> het volgende
> > geschreven:
> > 
> > Pull the uImage image format generation from kernel.bbclass into
> > a separate kernel-uimage.bbclass. The recipes which now need to
> > generate an uImage will have to inherit kernel-uimage instead of
> > kernel class.
> 
> To keep backward compatibility, could you rework this into something like:
> 
> kernel.bbclass:
> 	inherit kernel-${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}
> 
> kernel-${KERNEL_IMAGETYPE}:
> 	inherit kernel-base
> 	imagetype stuff
> 
> kernel-base:
> 	old kernel.bbclass stuff
> 
> That would keep existing BSPs working *and* split out the image types.

Yes, this makes sense. Are there any traps inside kernel.bbclass I should
be careful about? Like for example ${PN} or other possible variables which
are set based on the name of the file?

Thanks!

Best regards,
Marek Vasut