From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:13:36 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/9] linux: enable initrd/initramfs support when cpio rootfs is chosen In-Reply-To: <20131228194924.GJ3373@free.fr> References: <1388242600-2580-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1388242600-2580-6-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20131228194924.GJ3373@free.fr> Message-ID: <20131229111336.0242c913@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 20:49:24 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Do we even want to expose cpio in the first place? > > The way I see it: > - if someone wants an archive, then a tarball is a more common archive > type than cpio is, so we need not expose cpio. If the user wants an > archive, then he should just use a tarball. > - thus, as cpio is just a requirement for initramfs, there is no > reason to expose cpio in the menu, and just merge cpio as a internal > step of initramfs I am using the cpio format, exposed by Buildroot, on a daily basis. My use case is that I do a lot of kernel development. I do use Buildroot to generate a rootfs.cpio, but I build my kernel separately (because I'm rebuilding it many 50-100 times a day). And I simply point my kernel configuration to the Buildroot rootfs.cpio: ~/projets/marvell/mvebu$ grep INITRAMFS_SOURCE .config CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE="../rootfs-armv7/images/rootfs.cpio" So yes, I *really* want to keep the cpio format option :-) Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com