Re: IMAGE_FSTYPES that are supported?

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 07/14/11 12:34, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>> On 07/14/11 12:21, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 14 jul 2011, om 18:20 heeft Kumar Gala het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/14/11 09:40, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 14 jul 2011, om 15:13 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/14/11 09:05, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is there a list of which IMAGE_FSTYPES are supported.  I didn't see anything in the docs.  Looking to see if a u-boot 'mkimage' wrapped set of images is supported or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not 100% where the list is, but I can confirm that
>>>>>>> uImages are supported and work nicely. Assuming that
>>>>>>> you are talking about the common use case, and not something
>>>>>>> more exotic :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he means partitioned uimages where you have a kernel + initrd in a single uimage. We don't support that *yet*, but all the needed blocks are there. And we finally get a usecase for having the loadadresses in the machine.conf files :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yah, that's what I wondered as well. I've done this locally,
>>>>> but nothing out of the box .. so I had nagging doubts!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the IMAGE_FSTYPE for a normal uImage ?
>>>
>>> None, it's built by the kernel class, not the rootfs class.
>>
>> and to expand a bit, the machine conf would have:
>>
>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "uImage"
>>
>> So the kernel class will build and produce a uImage for deployment.
>
> Ah, so there isnt support for getting a ramdisk wrapped via mkimage.

Correct, or at least not that I've used out of the box, and
this is what Koen was commenting on.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> - k