Re: [PATCH 1/5] kernel.bbclass: move uImage handling to separate task

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> Op 18 dec. 2011, om 21:27 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Op 18 dec. 2011, om 20:47 heeft Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> As per org.oe.dev and meta-oe's kernel.bbclass move uImage creation to
>>>>> separate task from do_deploy. This way the do_install task can also
>>>>> benefit from generated uImage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only major feature of oe-core's version (not to recreate uImage
>>>>> if it exists) is retained in this patch.
>>>>
>>>> I still don't agree with that behaviour. The in-kernel uImage code is just like the in-kernel defconfigs: useless for people who aren't kernel developers.
>>>
>>> In that case, shouldn't people doing u-boot development (or other
>>> non-kernel developers),
>>> be building a uImage via something that isn't in kernel.bbclass ?
>>

i think we have UBOOT_ENTRYPOINT, UBOOT_ENTRYSYMBOL and
UBOOT_LOADADDRESS which are then used to generate the uImage
and sometimes defaults from kernel build system may not be usable as
it might be generating the image using some other values and we are not
able to control the image generation. Now is that fixable in kernel I guess
it could be but why not have flexibility of generating the image.

>> I use the kernel.bbclass in meta-oe, that does what I need.
>