> Hi Bastian, Hello Detlev,
sorry for the delay. > > > An ubifs image can be placed in an ubi image. This image can > > be flashed with the ubiformat utility. > > Thanks for the patch - I like what you do, but I have a few comments. > > > Signed-off-by: Bastian Ruppert <[email protected]> > > --- > > Config.in | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Makefile | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Config.in b/Config.in > > index 03dd3ff..3cea227 100644 > > --- a/Config.in > > +++ b/Config.in > > @@ -204,6 +204,49 @@ config UBIFS_MAX_LEB_COUNT > > there is no default value. More information under: > > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubifs.html#L_max_leb_cnt > > > > +menu "UBI Image" > > + depends IMAGE_UBIFS > > + > > +config IMAGE_UBI > > + depends IMAGE_UBIFS > > Maybe this is not generic enough - I can think of situations wher we > want to put another filesystem image (i.e. squashfs) also into a ubi > image. If we can do this, then this dependency is not correct. > OK, i can follow your doubts here. The UBI section is available without the UBIFS selection, now. > > + bool "Create UBI image" > > + default n > > + help > > + Create a UBI image containing the UBIFS image. This image can > > + be flashed to a mtd device with the ubiformat tool. > > Maybe we should try to have a "build an UBI image with the given > contents" and allow the contents to be defined. What do you think? In this patch UBIFS settings are necessary for the UBI image creation, so i put this "Create UBI only for UBIFS" in. > But > if we cannot ponder on the complexity of this, then I'd rather add your > change as is and leave the improvements for later. In a new patch i put a "Create UBI for this UBIFS" in because of the dependencies mentioned above, and leave further improvements for later. > > + > > +config UBI_CFG_VOL_NAME > > + depends IMAGE_UBI > > + string "vol_name" [...] > > + > > +config UBI_UBINIZE_CMD > > + depends IMAGE_UBI > > + string "ubinize command" > > + default "ubinize" > > + help > > + Set the ubinize tool to use. > > Is this needed? Will there ever be another tool that we want to use? > If not, then please remove this option and continue to use a makefile > variable to reference the tool defined at the top. > I changed this issue to a "prefix for the ubinize tool". I would like to have a build system independend version for this tool for production purposes. I hope the new patch following soon will fit better. Regards, Bastian. _______________________________________________ eldk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/eldk
