[wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

The OE 5.0 implementation of fitImage generation did not include the
kernel property in DTBO configuration node subnodes, while the current
OE 6.0 implementation does. The previous implementation was correct,
because kernel together with only a DTBO overlay can not form bootable
result. The kernel property should only be part of the configuration
subnode which includes both kernel and DTB. Fix this.

Fixes: 05d0c7342d76 ("kernel-fit-image.bbclass: add a new FIT image implementation")
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Dubois-Briand <mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
(cherry picked from commit 06ed34005957a6afb88270603df5e545941546b0)
---
Cc: Adrian Freihofer <adrian.freihofer@siemens.com>
Cc: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@smile.fr>
---
 meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py b/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py
index 881d0eae0ab..d7e21171ab9 100644
--- a/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py
+++ b/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py
@@ -425,8 +425,13 @@ class ItsNodeRootKernel(ItsNode):
         opt_props = {}
         conf_desc = []
         sign_entries = []
+        include_kernel = 1
 
-        if self._kernel:
+        # DTBO configuration sections do not include kernel property
+        if dtb and os.path.splitext(dtb.name)[1] == ".dtbo":
+            include_kernel = 0
+
+        if self._kernel and include_kernel:
             conf_desc.append("Linux kernel")
             opt_props["kernel"] = self._kernel.name
             if self._sign_enable:
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Freihofer, Adrian]

Hi Marek

I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-port of
it) is required:
https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.

Regards,
Adrian


On Tue, 2026-06-30 at 09:43 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> The OE 5.0 implementation of fitImage generation did not include the
> kernel property in DTBO configuration node subnodes, while the
> current
> OE 6.0 implementation does. The previous implementation was correct,
> because kernel together with only a DTBO overlay can not form
> bootable
> result. The kernel property should only be part of the configuration
> subnode which includes both kernel and DTB. Fix this.
> 
> Fixes: 05d0c7342d76 ("kernel-fit-image.bbclass: add a new FIT image
> implementation")
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Dubois-Briand
> <mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> (cherry picked from commit 06ed34005957a6afb88270603df5e545941546b0)
> ---
> Cc: Adrian Freihofer <adrian.freihofer@siemens.com>
> Cc: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@smile.fr>
> ---
>  meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py b/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py
> index 881d0eae0ab..d7e21171ab9 100644
> --- a/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py
> +++ b/meta/lib/oe/fitimage.py
> @@ -425,8 +425,13 @@ class ItsNodeRootKernel(ItsNode):
>          opt_props = {}
>          conf_desc = []
>          sign_entries = []
> +        include_kernel = 1
>  
> -        if self._kernel:
> +        # DTBO configuration sections do not include kernel property
> +        if dtb and os.path.splitext(dtb.name)[1] == ".dtbo":
> +            include_kernel = 0
> +
> +        if self._kernel and include_kernel:
>              conf_desc.append("Linux kernel")
>              opt_props["kernel"] = self._kernel.name
>              if self._sign_enable:

Re: [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 6/30/26 12:51 PM, Freihofer, Adrian wrote:

Hello Adrian,

> I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-port of
> it) is required:
> https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
> Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.
Thank you for staying vigilant.

Yoann, can you please pick the aforementioned commit too ?

Thank you for your help !

Re: [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Yoann Congal]

On Tue Jun 30, 2026 at 2:58 PM CEST, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 6/30/26 12:51 PM, Freihofer, Adrian wrote:
>
> Hello Adrian,
>
>> I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-port of
>> it) is required:
>> https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
>> Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.
> Thank you for staying vigilant.
>
> Yoann, can you please pick the aforementioned commit too ?
>
> Thank you for your help !

Hello,

I missed that discussion, sorry. But was reminded by Ryan (thanks).

If I understood correclty, the set of patches we need for wrynose is:
* kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes
* kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED = "1"
* oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config subnodes
* kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)

Marek, Adrian, Ryan: does that sound correct?

If yes, Marek, when the 4th patch merge, can you send an updated series
with all 4 backport patches?

Thanks!
-- 
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[adrian.freihofer]

On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 13:26 +0200, Yoann Congal via
lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Tue Jun 30, 2026 at 2:58 PM CEST, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 6/30/26 12:51 PM, Freihofer, Adrian wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Adrian,
> > 
> > > I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-
> > > port of
> > > it) is required:
> > > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
> > > Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.
> > Thank you for staying vigilant.
> > 
> > Yoann, can you please pick the aforementioned commit too ?
> > 
> > Thank you for your help !
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I missed that discussion, sorry. But was reminded by Ryan (thanks).
> 
> If I understood correclty, the set of patches we need for wrynose is:
> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
> config subnodes
> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
> "1"
> * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
> subnodes
> * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)
> 
> Marek, Adrian, Ryan: does that sound correct?
> 

Yes, that's correct. One little detail is the order of the patches. If
you pick the oe-selftest commit first, all commits are compile and
test-able. That's my suggestion:

 * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
subnodes
 * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
config subnodes
 * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
"1"
 * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)

same order as on master branch.

Regards,
Adrian


> If yes, Marek, when the 4th patch merge, can you send an updated
> series
> with all 4 backport patches?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#240033):
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/240033
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/120043543/4454582
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [
> adrian.freihofer@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 7/2/26 1:38 PM, adrian.freihofer@gmail.com wrote:

Hello everyone,

>>>> I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-
>>>> port of
>>>> it) is required:
>>>> https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
>>>> Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.
>>> Thank you for staying vigilant.
>>>
>>> Yoann, can you please pick the aforementioned commit too ?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help !
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I missed that discussion, sorry. But was reminded by Ryan (thanks).
>>
>> If I understood correclty, the set of patches we need for wrynose is:
>> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>> config subnodes
>> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
>> "1"
>> * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>> subnodes
>> * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)
>>
>> Marek, Adrian, Ryan: does that sound correct?
>>
> 
> Yes, that's correct. One little detail is the order of the patches. If
> you pick the oe-selftest commit first, all commits are compile and
> test-able. That's my suggestion:
> 
>   * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
> subnodes

This is [1].

>   * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
> config subnodes

This is [2].

>   * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
> "1"

This is [3].

>   * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)

This is still not even in master-next .

> same order as on master branch.

Thank you for your help !

[1] 
https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
[2] 
https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
[3] 
https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 7/4/26 11:55 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:

Hello one more time,

>>>>> I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-
>>>>> port of
>>>>> it) is required:
>>>>> https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/? 
>>>>> id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
>>>>> Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.
>>>> Thank you for staying vigilant.
>>>>
>>>> Yoann, can you please pick the aforementioned commit too ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your help !
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I missed that discussion, sorry. But was reminded by Ryan (thanks).
>>>
>>> If I understood correclty, the set of patches we need for wrynose is:
>>> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>>> config subnodes
>>> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
>>> "1"
>>> * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>>> subnodes
>>> * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>>> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)
>>>
>>> Marek, Adrian, Ryan: does that sound correct?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's correct. One little detail is the order of the patches. If
>> you pick the oe-selftest commit first, all commits are compile and
>> test-able. That's my suggestion:
>>
>>   * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>> subnodes
> 
> This is [1].
> 
>>   * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>> config subnodes
> 
> This is [2].
> 
>>   * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
>> "1"
> 
> This is [3].
> 
>>   * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)
> 
> This is still not even in master-next .
> 
>> same order as on master branch.
> 
> Thank you for your help !
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/ 
> patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
> [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/ 
> patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
> [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/ 
> patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/

Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE wrynose ?

Thank you for your help !

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Yoann Congal]

On Mon Jul 20, 2026 at 5:09 PM CEST, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 7/4/26 11:55 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
> Hello one more time,
>
>>>>>> I guess, before this patch can be applied, this one (or a back-
>>>>>> port of
>>>>>> it) is required:
>>>>>> https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/? 
>>>>>> id=85e0408a81bdca0411a8625061e5e343c05f92d9
>>>>>> Otherwise, the oe-selftest fail.
>>>>> Thank you for staying vigilant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yoann, can you please pick the aforementioned commit too ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your help !
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I missed that discussion, sorry. But was reminded by Ryan (thanks).
>>>>
>>>> If I understood correclty, the set of patches we need for wrynose is:
>>>> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>>>> config subnodes
>>>> * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
>>>> "1"
>>>> * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>>>> subnodes
>>>> * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>>>> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)
>>>>
>>>> Marek, Adrian, Ryan: does that sound correct?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that's correct. One little detail is the order of the patches. If
>>> you pick the oe-selftest commit first, all commits are compile and
>>> test-able. That's my suggestion:
>>>
>>>   * oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>>> subnodes
>> 
>> This is [1].
>> 
>>>   * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>>> config subnodes
>> 
>> This is [2].
>> 
>>>   * kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED =
>>> "1"
>> 
>> This is [3].
>> 
>>>   * kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>>> FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB (this one is not merged on master yet)
>> 
>> This is still not even in master-next .
>> 
>>> same order as on master branch.
>> 
>> Thank you for your help !
>> 
>> [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/ 
>> patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>> [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/ 
>> patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>> [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/ 
>> patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>
> Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE wrynose ?
>
> Thank you for your help !

Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/

Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one cycle in order to merge
the test at the same time.
See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/

Regards,
-- 
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 7/20/26 5:19 PM, Yoann Congal wrote:

Hello Yoann,

>>> [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>> patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>> [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>> patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>> [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>> patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>
>> Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE wrynose ?
>>
>> Thank you for your help !
> 
> Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/

Oh, that's nice.

> Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one cycle in order to merge
> the test at the same time.
> See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/

Thank you !

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 7/20/26 5:31 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:

Hello Yoann,

>>>> [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>> patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>> [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>> patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>> [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>> patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>
>>> Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE wrynose ?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help !
>>
>> Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
> 
> Oh, that's nice.
> 
>> Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one cycle in 
>> order to merge
>> the test at the same time.
>> See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ 
>> c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/

Are there any news on getting the fitImage fixes into the wrynose 
branch, is this still on your radar ?

Thank you, and I'm sorry for the push.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Yoann Congal]

qn Thu Jul 30, 2026 at 12:31 AM CEST, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 7/20/26 5:31 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
> Hello Yoann,
>
>>>>> [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>>> patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>>> [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>>> patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>>> [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>>> patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>>
>>>> Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE wrynose ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your help !
>>>
>>> Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
>> 
>> Oh, that's nice.
>> 
>>> Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one cycle in 
>>> order to merge
>>> the test at the same time.
>>> See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ 
>>> c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/
>
> Are there any news on getting the fitImage fixes into the wrynose 
> branch, is this still on your radar ?
>
> Thank you, and I'm sorry for the push.

Hello,

I don't mind the push, it's fair :)

This series is still on my radar but blocked on a wrynose test patch:
Basically this:
https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20260706221933.4026508-2-reatmon@ti.com/
... but backported to wrynose.
Ryan was working on it but did not sent the patch, I don't know what
happened.

Regards,
-- 
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 7/30/26 9:36 AM, Yoann Congal wrote:

Hello Yoann,

>>>>>> [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>>>> patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>>>> [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>>>> patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>>>> [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>>>>>> patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE wrynose ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your help !
>>>>
>>>> Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
>>>
>>> Oh, that's nice.
>>>
>>>> Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one cycle in
>>>> order to merge
>>>> the test at the same time.
>>>> See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/
>>>> c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/
>>
>> Are there any news on getting the fitImage fixes into the wrynose
>> branch, is this still on your radar ?
>>
>> Thank you, and I'm sorry for the push.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I don't mind the push, it's fair :)
> 
> This series is still on my radar but blocked on a wrynose test patch:
> Basically this:
> https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20260706221933.4026508-2-reatmon@ti.com/
> ... but backported to wrynose.
> Ryan was working on it but did not sent the patch, I don't know what
> happened.

Do you think the fitImage fixes could be backported without the test 
patch, or would that make some test suite fail? Please pardon my ignorance.

The fitimage fixes landed in oe-core master 6 weeks ago and they fix 
fitImage usability issues which block me from updating to wrynose in 
multiple projects, that's why I keep monitoring this thread so, but 
again, please do not read this as a push.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[adrian.freihofer]

Hello Marek, hello Yoann

On Thu, 2026-07-30 at 13:52 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 7/30/26 9:36 AM, Yoann Congal wrote:
> 
> Hello Yoann,
> 
> > > > > > > [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
> > > > > > > patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
> > > > > > > [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
> > > > > > > patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
> > > > > > > [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
> > > > > > > patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE
> > > > > > wrynose ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you for your help !
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, that's nice.
> > > > 
> > > > > Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one
> > > > > cycle in
> > > > > order to merge
> > > > > the test at the same time.
> > > > > See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/
> > > > > c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/
> > > 
> > > Are there any news on getting the fitImage fixes into the wrynose
> > > branch, is this still on your radar ?
> > > 
> > > Thank you, and I'm sorry for the push.
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I don't mind the push, it's fair :)
> > 
> > This series is still on my radar but blocked on a wrynose test
> > patch:
> > Basically this:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20260706221933.4026508-2-reatmon@ti.com/
> > ... but backported to wrynose.
> > Ryan was working on it but did not sent the patch, I don't know
> > what
> > happened.
> 
> Do you think the fitImage fixes could be backported without the test 
> patch, or would that make some test suite fail? Please pardon my
> ignorance.
> 
> The fitimage fixes landed in oe-core master 6 weeks ago and they fix 
> fitImage usability issues which block me from updating to wrynose in 
> multiple projects, that's why I keep monitoring this thread so, but 
> again, please do not read this as a push.

I think going with the four patches from
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
without a fifth patch which adds test coverage for this fairly isolated
detail is fine.


Important is: We need 4 not only 3 patches:

Adrian Freihofer (1):
  oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
    subnodes

Marek Vasut (2):
  kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
    config subnodes
  kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED = "1"

Ryan Eatmon (1):
  kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
    FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB


And also important is: We need time for testing on master before back-
porting to stable. Six weeks is probably enough. But the exact same
pattern ended up with a broken stable branch maybe one year ago. And
also this time there was a state on master which was at least
incomplete (three instead of four patches). But still, I think this is
ready for stable now.


Regards,
Adrian

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Yoann Congal]

On Thu Jul 30, 2026 at 2:19 PM CEST, adrian.freihofer wrote:
> Hello Marek, hello Yoann
>
> On Thu, 2026-07-30 at 13:52 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 7/30/26 9:36 AM, Yoann Congal wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Yoann,
>> 
>> > > > > > > [1] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>> > > > > > > patch/20260704214812.365483-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>> > > > > > > [2] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>> > > > > > > patch/20260630074356.10265-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>> > > > > > > [3] https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/
>> > > > > > > patch/20260630074423.10306-1-marek.vasut@mailbox.org/
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Do you think those three backports can be picked up for OE
>> > > > > > wrynose ?
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Thank you for your help !
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Sure! They even are in the branch I sent for review:
>> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
>> > > > 
>> > > > Oh, that's nice.
>> > > > 
>> > > > > Following Paul's review, I will most likely hold it for one
>> > > > > cycle in
>> > > > > order to merge
>> > > > > the test at the same time.
>> > > > > See: https://lore.kernel.org/all/
>> > > > > c791b1b82e236039c614ab41402844c965fdc6c5.camel@pbarker.dev/
>> > > 
>> > > Are there any news on getting the fitImage fixes into the wrynose
>> > > branch, is this still on your radar ?
>> > > 
>> > > Thank you, and I'm sorry for the push.
>> > 
>> > Hello,
>> > 
>> > I don't mind the push, it's fair :)
>> > 
>> > This series is still on my radar but blocked on a wrynose test
>> > patch:
>> > Basically this:
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/openembedded-core/20260706221933.4026508-2-reatmon@ti.com/
>> > ... but backported to wrynose.
>> > Ryan was working on it but did not sent the patch, I don't know
>> > what
>> > happened.
>> 
>> Do you think the fitImage fixes could be backported without the test 
>> patch, or would that make some test suite fail? Please pardon my
>> ignorance.

The series of patches (without test) did not break the autotbuilder
tests.

>> The fitimage fixes landed in oe-core master 6 weeks ago and they fix 
>> fitImage usability issues which block me from updating to wrynose in 
>> multiple projects, that's why I keep monitoring this thread so, but 
>> again, please do not read this as a push.
>
> I think going with the four patches from
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
> without a fifth patch which adds test coverage for this fairly isolated
> detail is fine.

This is where I disagree. Last time I reviewed this series it looked
good but I had no way to check it actually worked once backported to
wrynose. That is why I asked Ryan to backport the test from master to
wrynose.

>
> Important is: We need 4 not only 3 patches:
>
> Adrian Freihofer (1):
>   oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>     subnodes
>
> Marek Vasut (2):
>   kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>     config subnodes
>   kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED = "1"
>
> Ryan Eatmon (1):
>   kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>     FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB

Yes. This is the patches I have for this work. 

> And also important is: We need time for testing on master before back-
> porting to stable. Six weeks is probably enough. But the exact same
> pattern ended up with a broken stable branch maybe one year ago. And
> also this time there was a state on master which was at least
> incomplete (three instead of four patches). But still, I think this is
> ready for stable now.

I agree on the series needing testing. One more argument for waiting for
a wrynose test.
See https://lore.kernel.org/all/DK3HWGV0JCOP.14DJEFKWLP67L@smile.fr/
(from the same thread you linked)

Regards,
-- 
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 7/30/26 2:39 PM, Yoann Congal wrote:

Hello everyone,

>>> The fitimage fixes landed in oe-core master 6 weeks ago and they fix
>>> fitImage usability issues which block me from updating to wrynose in
>>> multiple projects, that's why I keep monitoring this thread so, but
>>> again, please do not read this as a push.
>>
>> I think going with the four patches from
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
>> without a fifth patch which adds test coverage for this fairly isolated
>> detail is fine.
> 
> This is where I disagree. Last time I reviewed this series it looked
> good but I had no way to check it actually worked once backported to
> wrynose. That is why I asked Ryan to backport the test from master to
> wrynose.

Is there a git tree/branch with those patches ? If so, I can at least 
test this locally and confirm whether or not anything is broken on my end ?

>> Important is: We need 4 not only 3 patches:
>>
>> Adrian Freihofer (1):
>>    oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO config
>>      subnodes
>>
>> Marek Vasut (2):
>>    kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO
>>      config subnodes
>>    kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with KERNEL_DTBVENDORED = "1"
>>
>> Ryan Eatmon (1):
>>    kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>>      FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB
> 
> Yes. This is the patches I have for this work.
> 
>> And also important is: We need time for testing on master before back-
>> porting to stable. Six weeks is probably enough. But the exact same
>> pattern ended up with a broken stable branch maybe one year ago. And
>> also this time there was a state on master which was at least
>> incomplete (three instead of four patches). But still, I think this is
>> ready for stable now.
> 
> I agree on the series needing testing. One more argument for waiting for
> a wrynose test.
> See https://lore.kernel.org/all/DK3HWGV0JCOP.14DJEFKWLP67L@smile.fr/
> (from the same thread you linked)

I ran this now and got 8 commits which cleanly apply on the wrynose 
branch, maybe that is all that is missing for the test part ?

$ git log --oneline --reverse --grep=fitimage 
origin/wrynose..origin/master -- meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/fitimage.py
e46d8473fb3 oeqa/selftest/fitimage: fix missing whitespace around assignment
0344e652a40 oe-selftest: fitimage: replace _gen_random_file with 
_gen_elf64_dummy
5592be53348 oe-selftest: fitimage: replace bbb-dtbs-as-ext with 
test-dtbs-as-ext
befc103a95d oe-selftest: fitimage: replace MACHINE==qemux86-64 guards 
with KERNEL_SETUP_BIN
4b08cf6048b oe-selftest: fitimage: add machine settings table and skip 
helpers
f17f4263c07 oe-selftest: fitimage: stop hardcoding MACHINE and DISTRO in 
tests
85e0408a81b oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO 
config subnodes
de2e11e6362 oe-selftest: fitimage: Add tests for KERNEL_DTBVENDORED

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[adrian.freihofer]

On Thu, 2026-07-30 at 15:00 +0200, Marek Vasut via
lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On 7/30/26 2:39 PM, Yoann Congal wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> > > > The fitimage fixes landed in oe-core master 6 weeks ago and
> > > > they fix
> > > > fitImage usability issues which block me from updating to
> > > > wrynose in
> > > > multiple projects, that's why I keep monitoring this thread so,
> > > > but
> > > > again, please do not read this as a push.
> > > 
> > > I think going with the four patches from
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
> > > without a fifth patch which adds test coverage for this fairly
> > > isolated
> > > detail is fine.
> > 
> > This is where I disagree. Last time I reviewed this series it
> > looked
> > good but I had no way to check it actually worked once backported
> > to
> > wrynose. That is why I asked Ryan to backport the test from master
> > to
> > wrynose.
> 
> Is there a git tree/branch with those patches ? If so, I can at least
> test this locally and confirm whether or not anything is broken on my
> end ?
> 
> > > Important is: We need 4 not only 3 patches:
> > > 
> > > Adrian Freihofer (1):
> > >    oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO
> > > config
> > >      subnodes
> > > 
> > > Marek Vasut (2):
> > >    kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in
> > > DTBO
> > >      config subnodes
> > >    kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with
> > > KERNEL_DTBVENDORED = "1"
> > > 
> > > Ryan Eatmon (1):
> > >    kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
> > >      FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB
> > 
> > Yes. This is the patches I have for this work.
> > 
> > > And also important is: We need time for testing on master before
> > > back-
> > > porting to stable. Six weeks is probably enough. But the exact
> > > same
> > > pattern ended up with a broken stable branch maybe one year ago.
> > > And
> > > also this time there was a state on master which was at least
> > > incomplete (three instead of four patches). But still, I think
> > > this is
> > > ready for stable now.
> > 
> > I agree on the series needing testing. One more argument for
> > waiting for
> > a wrynose test.
> > See
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/DK3HWGV0JCOP.14DJEFKWLP67L@smile.fr/
> > (from the same thread you linked)
> 
> I ran this now and got 8 commits which cleanly apply on the wrynose 
> branch, maybe that is all that is missing for the test part ?
> 
> $ git log --oneline --reverse --grep=fitimage 
> origin/wrynose..origin/master --
> meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/fitimage.py
> e46d8473fb3 oeqa/selftest/fitimage: fix missing whitespace around
> assignment
> 0344e652a40 oe-selftest: fitimage: replace _gen_random_file with 
> _gen_elf64_dummy
> 5592be53348 oe-selftest: fitimage: replace bbb-dtbs-as-ext with 
> test-dtbs-as-ext
> befc103a95d oe-selftest: fitimage: replace MACHINE==qemux86-64 guards
> with KERNEL_SETUP_BIN
> 4b08cf6048b oe-selftest: fitimage: add machine settings table and
> skip 
> helpers
> f17f4263c07 oe-selftest: fitimage: stop hardcoding MACHINE and DISTRO
> in 
> tests
> 85e0408a81b oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in
> DTBO 
> config subnodes
> de2e11e6362 oe-selftest: fitimage: Add tests for KERNEL_DTBVENDORED
> 

It's this series which makes back-porting the tests hard, I agree:
https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/list/?series=47907&state=%2A&archive=both

Question is what's simpler and more appropriate: Back-porting major
changes for "only" test code or adding test coverage to the old test
code on wrynose. Technically, I would have sent the oe-selftest rework
earlier if I had it available. So, back-porting=cherry-picking would
make sense and be straight forward. Process wise, I would probably
stick to just adding test coverage for the changes on wrynose. That
should be easy doable, it's just not cherry-pickable.

Regards
Adrian

> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#242350):
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/242350
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/120043543/4454582
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [
> adrian.freihofer@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in DTBO config subnodes

[Yoann Congal]

On Thu Jul 30, 2026 at 3:23 PM CEST, adrian.freihofer wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-07-30 at 15:00 +0200, Marek Vasut via
> lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>> On 7/30/26 2:39 PM, Yoann Congal wrote:
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> > > > The fitimage fixes landed in oe-core master 6 weeks ago and
>> > > > they fix
>> > > > fitImage usability issues which block me from updating to
>> > > > wrynose in
>> > > > multiple projects, that's why I keep monitoring this thread so,
>> > > > but
>> > > > again, please do not read this as a push.
>> > > 
>> > > I think going with the four patches from
>> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1784364567.git.yoann.congal@smile.fr/
>> > > without a fifth patch which adds test coverage for this fairly
>> > > isolated
>> > > detail is fine.
>> > 
>> > This is where I disagree. Last time I reviewed this series it
>> > looked
>> > good but I had no way to check it actually worked once backported
>> > to
>> > wrynose. That is why I asked Ryan to backport the test from master
>> > to
>> > wrynose.
>> 
>> Is there a git tree/branch with those patches ? If so, I can at least
>> test this locally and confirm whether or not anything is broken on my
>> end ?

I pushed that here:
https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=ycongal/wrynose/kernel-fit

>> 
>> > > Important is: We need 4 not only 3 patches:
>> > > 
>> > > Adrian Freihofer (1):
>> > >    oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in DTBO
>> > > config
>> > >      subnodes
>> > > 
>> > > Marek Vasut (2):
>> > >    kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Do not include kernel property in
>> > > DTBO
>> > >      config subnodes
>> > >    kernel-fit-image.bbclass: Fix operation with
>> > > KERNEL_DTBVENDORED = "1"
>> > > 
>> > > Ryan Eatmon (1):
>> > >    kernel-fit-image: Add KERNEL_DTBVENDORED support for
>> > >      FIT_CONF_DEFAULT_DTB
>> > 
>> > Yes. This is the patches I have for this work.
>> > 
>> > > And also important is: We need time for testing on master before
>> > > back-
>> > > porting to stable. Six weeks is probably enough. But the exact
>> > > same
>> > > pattern ended up with a broken stable branch maybe one year ago.
>> > > And
>> > > also this time there was a state on master which was at least
>> > > incomplete (three instead of four patches). But still, I think
>> > > this is
>> > > ready for stable now.
>> > 
>> > I agree on the series needing testing. One more argument for
>> > waiting for
>> > a wrynose test.
>> > See
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/DK3HWGV0JCOP.14DJEFKWLP67L@smile.fr/
>> > (from the same thread you linked)
>> 
>> I ran this now and got 8 commits which cleanly apply on the wrynose 
>> branch, maybe that is all that is missing for the test part ?
>> 
>> $ git log --oneline --reverse --grep=fitimage 
>> origin/wrynose..origin/master --
>> meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/fitimage.py
>> e46d8473fb3 oeqa/selftest/fitimage: fix missing whitespace around
>> assignment
>> 0344e652a40 oe-selftest: fitimage: replace _gen_random_file with 
>> _gen_elf64_dummy
>> 5592be53348 oe-selftest: fitimage: replace bbb-dtbs-as-ext with 
>> test-dtbs-as-ext
>> befc103a95d oe-selftest: fitimage: replace MACHINE==qemux86-64 guards
>> with KERNEL_SETUP_BIN
>> 4b08cf6048b oe-selftest: fitimage: add machine settings table and
>> skip 
>> helpers
>> f17f4263c07 oe-selftest: fitimage: stop hardcoding MACHINE and DISTRO
>> in 
>> tests
>> 85e0408a81b oe-selftest: fitimage: Do not expect kernel property in
>> DTBO 
>> config subnodes
>> de2e11e6362 oe-selftest: fitimage: Add tests for KERNEL_DTBVENDORED
>> 
>
> It's this series which makes back-porting the tests hard, I agree:
> https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe-core/list/?series=47907&state=%2A&archive=both
>
> Question is what's simpler and more appropriate: Back-porting major
> changes for "only" test code or adding test coverage to the old test
> code on wrynose. Technically, I would have sent the oe-selftest rework
> earlier if I had it available. So, back-porting=cherry-picking would
> make sense and be straight forward. Process wise, I would probably
> stick to just adding test coverage for the changes on wrynose. That
> should be easy doable, it's just not cherry-pickable.

Those cherry-picks do not look particularly good, please avoid them if
we can...

If you can easily send a single patch that test the series on
wrynose, that does sound better.

Thanks!
-- 
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS