Re: [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] support/scripts/genimage.sh: support creating a bmap image

From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
To: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com,
	"Xuanhao Shi" <X15000177@gmail.com>,
	"Gero Schwäricke" <gero.schwaericke@grandcentrix.net>,
	buildroot@buildroot.org, "Romain Naour" <romain.naour@smile.fr>,
	michael@amarulasolutions.com, linux-amarula@amarulasolutions.com,
	"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>,
	"Anand Gadiyar" <gadiyar@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] support/scripts/genimage.sh: support creating a bmap image
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 11:23:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240520112336.7431520d@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABGWkvqz7-bnCJ6JBjp3rpbeSnDEZw55jNNHOmpbyGA772xDvA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Dario,

[ Your e-mail client configuration seems somewhat broken, your lines
  are badly wrapped ]

On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:05:34 +0200
Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:

> > Now the question is how to do this. To me your proposal looks
> > reasonable, though some people had the feedback that bmap-tools will
> > not work in all cases (should we then gracefully handle this failure
> > case?).  
> 
> If I understand correctly, the first patch in the series seems
> reasonable to Gero as well.
> Therefore, both of you are in favor of merging this patch. The issue
> arises for Gero
> regarding the application of the second patch, which I added only as
> an example use case.
> I think merging the first patch would give the opportunity to use
> bmaptool and realize its
> usefulness. After all, the patch is backward compatible. Its use could
> then lead to subsequent
> improvements.
> 
> Regarding the second patch, I then ask you: Is it correct not to
> proceed with merging this
> patch for the reason mentioned by Gero (i.e., encrypted directory)? It
> seems to me that
> bmaptool is used in Yocto, so is it correct to say that you would have
> the same problem
> with Yocto? I hope, Gero, you do not misunderstand me.

Yes, the first patch is reasonable, but if we can't apply something
like the second patch, then it might mean that the approach taken in
the first patch isn't correct. Indeed, if we can't enable by default
the generation of bmap-capable images in defconfigs, it kind of limits
the usefulness of this bmap-tool integration.

I was hoping for the other BR maintainers to chime in with some opinion.

Do we have a way to detect that the bmap-tool generation will fail, and
in this case gracefully skip the bmap-tool logic?

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot