From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qgo2i-0001y1-Ij for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:15:12 +0200 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Qgnyu-0007mK-Bq from Tom_Rini@mentor.com ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:11:16 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:11:16 -0700 Received: from [172.30.80.17] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:11:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4E1CF0B1.6060400@mentor.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:11:13 -0700 From: Tom Rini Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Thomas References: <1314a49d823f6e174ca09773cde0fee7ed0e1306.1310511423.git.josh@linux.intel.com> <4E1CDAE7.3040501@mentor.com> <4E1CE8D6.80605@mlbassoc.com> <4E1CEA80.70806@mentor.com> <4E1CEC39.1030202@mlbassoc.com> In-Reply-To: <4E1CEC39.1030202@mlbassoc.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2011 01:11:16.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3A9EEF0:01CC40F9] Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] classes/image_types: add a variable to list available IMAGE_FSTYPE's X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:15:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/12/2011 05:52 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 07/12/2011 06:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On 07/12/2011 05:37 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: >>> On 07/12/2011 05:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On 07/12/2011 04:24 PM, Joshua Lock wrote: >>>>> This is for use in the Hob GUI to enable the user to change the type >>>>> of the >>>>> generated image. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock >>>>> --- >>>>> meta/classes/image_types.bbclass | 2 ++ >>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>> b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>> index 89a745c..29d7a57 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>> +++ b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>> @@ -102,3 +102,5 @@ IMAGE_DEPENDS_cpio.xz = "xz-native" >>>>> IMAGE_DEPENDS_ubi = "mtd-utils-native" >>>>> IMAGE_DEPENDS_ubifs = "mtd-utils-native" >>>>> >>>>> +# This variable is available to request which values are suitable >>>>> for IMAGE_FSTYPES >>>>> +IMAGE_TYPES = "jffs2 cramfs ext2 ext2.gz ext3 ext3.gz squashfs >>>>> squashfs-lzma ubi ubifs" >>>> >>>> Concept is fine, but please don't list ubi and ubifs just list ubi. >>> >>> Perhaps the [brokwn] rule to explicitly build ubifs should also be >>> purged? >> >> Nope, that's how the ubi is created. Essentially at the time anyhow, OE >> didn't make it too easy to add in an image that needs to be in a >> container to be used. So we have the ubifs rule (yes, that needs a >> cherry-pick from oe.dev) for 'advanced' users and the ubi rule to create >> a simple ubi image. > > I might be missing something, but I don't see why this rule is necessary > in image_types.bbclass: > IMAGE_CMD_ubifs = "mkfs.ubifs -r ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} -o > ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.ubifs.img ${MKUBIFS_ARGS}" > > Having it there leads to the confusion (I was) that ubifs was useful. > > At least for me, I can build ubi images with that rule removed. OK, refreshed my memory again. We have ubifs (and it might indeed need some quick kicking/fixing) target (a) since that's what was there to start with, but not quite enough (b) for advanced users. There is a point to making a ubifs image which is when you're making a complex ubi volume (either outside of OE or in your collection/layer that provides a more complex ubinize conf). The problem in oe-core today is that we were using non-standard extensions on the ubifs part to try and distinguish between usable standalone files (ubi) and parts (ubifs). -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation