On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 3:19 PM CEST, Dixit Parmar via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 06:30 PM, Antonin Godard wrote:

On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 2:14 PM CEST, Dixit Parmar via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:

Will fix the ref->term typo and the take your suggestion on rewording.

There seem to be confusion related to the kernel package name, however I
feel
it was additional information. I shall remove the mention of the kernel
package name (keep the variable reference only) for simplicity in next
version.
Looking forward to it!

Yes, you would be able to install "all" the kernel-modules without
bothering
about KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES. The issue is having autoload .conf file being
installed or not when KERNEL_MODULE_AUTOLOAD is having your modules listed
to
be autoloader. When KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES = 0 the .conf files for driver
autoload and probeconf is not getting generated.
This sounds like a bug to me, no? Why would someone expect setting
KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES to 0 have the autoload files missing?

I ran a some tests. So when I set KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES to 1, and
KERNEL_MODULE_AUTOLOAD to "xt_limit", a kernel-module-xt-limit.ipk package
is
generated like so:

├── etc
│ └── modules-load.d
│ └── xt_limit.conf
└── lib
└── modules
└── 6.12.30-yocto-standard
└── kernel
└── net
└── netfilter
└── xt_limit.ko

When KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES is set to 0, only one kernel-modules.ipk package
is
generated, and does _not_ contain xt_limit.conf, but only xt_limit.ko. To
me
this sounds like a bug, what do you think?
Exactly, that's the issue reported https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15145 ( https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15145 ) and I am fixing it here with this solution https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/218290.

I would _not_ describe that behavior in the documentation for the
KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES variables.
True, that's why the documentation does not mention anything about the conf files.

The fact that "kernel-modules" is still available when
KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES = 1
is simply because a "fake" kernel-modules.ipk package is generated, and
depends
on the other kernel-module-* packages - so you can ignore my remark in my
previous message.
Which remark exactly??
About the possibility to install "kernel-modules" both when KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES
is 0 or 1. I guess it doesn't hurt to add a note about that at the end of the
definition:

"""
.. note::

If :term:`KERNEL_SPLIT_MODULES` is set to 0, it is still possible to install
all kernel modules at once by adding ``kernel-modules`` to
:term:`IMAGE_INSTALL`. The way it works is that a placeholder
"kernel-modules" package will be created and will depend on every other
individual kernel module packages.
"""

So there's no confusion. What do you think?

That sounds good to me. I will append this note. Thanks for suggestion.

Antonin

--
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com