is INITRAMFS_TASK still useful, or can it be tossed?

is INITRAMFS_TASK still useful, or can it be tossed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  just noticed the following -- here's snippets from kernel.bbclass:

... snip ...
INITRAMFS_TASK ?= ""
... snip ...
    # NOTE: setting INITRAMFS_TASK is for backward compatibility
    #       The preferred method is to set INITRAMFS_IMAGE, because
    #       this INITRAMFS_TASK has circular dependency problems
    #       if the initramfs requires kernel modules
    image_task = d.getVar('INITRAMFS_TASK', True)
    if image_task:
        d.appendVarFlag('do_configure', 'depends', ' ${INITRAMFS_TASK}')
    ... snip ...
        if [ "$use_alternate_initrd" = "" ] && [ "${INITRAMFS_TASK}" != "" ] ; then
                # The old style way of copying an prebuilt image and building it
                # is turned on via INTIRAMFS_TASK != ""
    ... snip ...

  i have about a dozen layers checked out and the only other place i
see that variable used is:

meta-oe/meta-initramfs/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny-kexecboot_3.10.bb:
  INITRAMFS_TASK = "${INITRAMFS_IMAGE}:do_rootfs"

so has INITRAMFS_TASK been obsoleted by INITRAMFS_IMAGE? or is it
still worth hanging onto?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: is INITRAMFS_TASK still useful, or can it be tossed?

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
>   just noticed the following -- here's snippets from kernel.bbclass:
>
> ... snip ...
> INITRAMFS_TASK ?= ""
> ... snip ...
>     # NOTE: setting INITRAMFS_TASK is for backward compatibility
>     #       The preferred method is to set INITRAMFS_IMAGE, because
>     #       this INITRAMFS_TASK has circular dependency problems
>     #       if the initramfs requires kernel modules
>     image_task = d.getVar('INITRAMFS_TASK', True)
>     if image_task:
>         d.appendVarFlag('do_configure', 'depends', ' ${INITRAMFS_TASK}')
>     ... snip ...
>         if [ "$use_alternate_initrd" = "" ] && [ "${INITRAMFS_TASK}" != "" ] ; then
>                 # The old style way of copying an prebuilt image and building it
>                 # is turned on via INTIRAMFS_TASK != ""
>     ... snip ...
>
>   i have about a dozen layers checked out and the only other place i
> see that variable used is:
>
> meta-oe/meta-initramfs/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny-kexecboot_3.10.bb:
>   INITRAMFS_TASK = "${INITRAMFS_IMAGE}:do_rootfs"

check meta-handheld, it was an existing use case we didn't want to break.

Bruce

>
> so has INITRAMFS_TASK been obsoleted by INITRAMFS_IMAGE? or is it
> still worth hanging onto?
>
> rday
>
> --
>
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>                         http://crashcourse.ca
>
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"

Re: is INITRAMFS_TASK still useful, or can it be tossed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >
> >   just noticed the following -- here's snippets from kernel.bbclass:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> > INITRAMFS_TASK ?= ""
> > ... snip ...
> >     # NOTE: setting INITRAMFS_TASK is for backward compatibility
> >     #       The preferred method is to set INITRAMFS_IMAGE, because
> >     #       this INITRAMFS_TASK has circular dependency problems
> >     #       if the initramfs requires kernel modules
> >     image_task = d.getVar('INITRAMFS_TASK', True)
> >     if image_task:
> >         d.appendVarFlag('do_configure', 'depends', ' ${INITRAMFS_TASK}')
> >     ... snip ...
> >         if [ "$use_alternate_initrd" = "" ] && [ "${INITRAMFS_TASK}" != "" ] ; then
> >                 # The old style way of copying an prebuilt image and building it
> >                 # is turned on via INTIRAMFS_TASK != ""
> >     ... snip ...
> >
> >   i have about a dozen layers checked out and the only other place i
> > see that variable used is:
> >
> > meta-oe/meta-initramfs/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-tiny-kexecboot_3.10.bb:
> >   INITRAMFS_TASK = "${INITRAMFS_IMAGE}:do_rootfs"
>
> check meta-handheld, it was an existing use case we didn't want to break.

  ah, that wasn't one of the layers i had checked out, thanks.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================