Re: uImage generation: kernel.bbclass vs linux.inc

["Jeremy Lainé" <jeremy.laine@bolloretelecom.eu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Koen Kooi wrote:
> Jeremy Lainé schreef: | With the recent changes to kernel.bbclass
> it seems that uboot-mkimage is | called twice: | | linux.inc:
> do_compile_append() | | 1/ uses uboot-mkimage to generate generates
> arch/${ARCH}/boot/uImage
>
> That's needed to get the correct uImage packaged, some machines
> have the uImage in the rootfs (don't turn on lzo in jffs2, uboot
> doesn't like that).
>
I totally agree, the change to uImage needs to be done in time for it
to be picked up by packaging. My point is I think we should:

a/ move do_compile_append() into kernel.bbclass
b/ in do_deploy() : not run uboot-mkimage since this has already been
done during do_compile_append()

> That raises the question how kexec handles uImage files and how we
> can make it easy for people to generate uImage for flashing and
> zImage for kexecing in the same build.
>
OK, we will have to look into this.
> DATETIME in version strings should die, we have PR for that. If the
>  output changed, PR should have been bumped. Lazyness is not a
> valid excuse for littering my deploydir with identical files with a
> different timestamp each build. Your filesystem has mtime if you
> really want to see a date.
>
I agree, I have commited this change.

- --
Jeremy LAINE
Bolloré telecom | 11bis, rue Scribe | F-75009 Paris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH8KyDCL1n3lVB9EYRAl2IAJ9sqVBp4OAgg55zzKCGuhyLk5Gq5QCfdrxB
Ghj+IYQbuVPITyMIxR3DFc4=
=r441
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----