Hello Konstantin, On 1/6/26 11:12 AM, Konstantin Kletschke wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 10:52:53AM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > >> Which barebox version do you use? > > It should be 2025.02.0. > I switched to walnascar and this should be the part used: > https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/tree/meta/recipes-bsp/barebox?h=walnascar > >> Ahmad added the support for a single barebox binary: >> - >> https://lore.barebox.org/barebox/[email protected]/ >> >> IIRC the purpose of the patchset was exactly to fulfill an easier Yocto >> integration since the beaglebone is one of the oe-core real test hw. > > That's is very interesting. > What I did not get, yet: > So we can keep our partition scheme, the CPUs bootloader is searching > hardcoded for partition table -> first vfat -> MLO. > Then barebox-am33xx-beaglebone.img is put there as MLO?
When enabled, the same barebox build generates two images: barebox-am33xx-beaglebone-mlo.mmc.img -> MLO barebox-am33xx-beaglebone.img -> barebox.bin Both are placed in the VFAT. >> Since the single image approach targets only the SD/MMC boot, the >> standalone MLO image should be still possible. I didn't test it on eMMC and I suspect it needs light tweaking to work there. If you are happy to test, I can find some time later to send a patch. > Can this be switched on/off somewere in the yocto framework so the old > MLO/barebox.bin pair is genereated? For your old setup, you will need two recipes. Just define your own barebox.bb and barebox-pbl.bb recipes and inherit barebox in each and use different configs. All the core logic is in a barebox.bbclass to allow you to easily create your own recipes. This allows you also to use a newer version than v2025.02.0 for example v2025.09.1, which is going to be maintained for longer than just a month. Cheers, Ahmad > > Regards > Konstantin > > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
