From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D4DC001E0 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com (lelv0142.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.249]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.1189.1690994463473171799 for ; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 09:41:03 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17Q1 header.b=UUNJedVA; spf=pass (domain: ti.com, ip: 198.47.23.249, mailfrom: reatmon@ti.com) Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 372Gf26B038365 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:41:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1690994462; bh=gR2qKQICNA+/BT33AgSC3p4SMU4u5eaxmGsEY2WWAsM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=UUNJedVAJ03pfENfpvdAS8cvrKYBL5hl5W0F9f5BxzDt16ZxfcE4Axx3kigettoGa JraPf93o907qPhQN6vmf0+rXLVjQPg4UblW7NRvXqsc7Wu645zCFDXUp3BpYXZCRZu sVoQDOJy2JdCQCct/zydzvJjoEHWT57lcW3U6znk= Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (dlee111.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.22]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 372Gf2Og072209 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:41:02 -0500 Received: from DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:41:02 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:41:02 -0500 Received: from [128.247.81.69] (ileaxei01-snat2.itg.ti.com [10.180.69.6]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 372Gf1sh005627 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:41:02 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:41:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Content-Language: en-US To: From: Ryan Eatmon Subject: image.bbclass question Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:41:06 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/185415 I am trying to add support for the INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE into the meta-ti layer for our tiny image. I have added the following to our tiny image file: INITRAMFS_FSTYPES += "cpio cpio.xz" INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE = "65536" But I'm not seeing any errors about the image being too big being printed. In looking at the code in question: # Check the initramfs size against INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE (if set) if image_fstypes == initramfs_fstypes != '' and initramfs_maxsize: initramfs_maxsize_int = int(initramfs_maxsize) if base_size > initramfs_maxsize_int: bb.error("The initramfs size %d(K) exceeds INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE: %d(K)" % \ (base_size, initramfs_maxsize_int)) bb.error("You can set INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE a larger value. Usually, it should") bb.fatal("be less than 1/2 of ram size, or you may fail to boot it.\n") What is the purpose of the: if image_fstypes == initramfs_fstypes != '' It seems to looking for the ONLY images being built are the exact same as the INITRAMFS_FSTYPES... Shouldn't that be more of an intersection check? If any of the INITRAMFS_FSTYPES are in the IMAGE_FSTYPES, then check the size? Or am I missing something? -- Ryan Eatmon reatmon@ti.com ----------------------------------------- Texas Instruments, Inc. - LCPD - MGTS