On September 28, 2023 thus sayeth Res Sapp: > On 9/27/23 14:02, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 02:00:26PM -0500, Andrew Davis wrote: > > > On 7/28/22 6:31 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 06:29:04PM -0500, Bryan Brattlof wrote: > > > > > On July 22, 2022 thus sayeth Tom Rini: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:31:30PM -0500, Bryan Brattlof wrote: > > > > > > > On July 21, 2022 thus sayeth Denys Dmytriyenko: > > > > > > > > I don't think this is a correct solution, or maybe I'm not > > > > > > > > understanding the > > > > > > > > problem. Can you please elaborate a bit more on the problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly new to yocto so I'm sure I've found the entirely wrong > > > > > > > way to > > > > > > > get what I wanted :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After boot it appears /etc/fstab is setup to mount our vfat boot > > > > > > > partition to the /boot directory currently holding the Image and > > > > > > > dtbs. > > > > > > > I guess because uboot has already thrown the kernel and dtb into > > > > > > > ddr at > > > > > > > this point only Anand was able to notice this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My change should mount the vfat partition to /boot/firmware so we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > access to both our spls and kernel binaries in /boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm also not sure what folder name to use here. It seem like > > > > > > > there may > > > > > > > be a standard to this? Would /boot/uboot be more correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > So which SoCs are we talking about here? For the 64bit parts, the > > > > > > intention should be that the FAT partition on p1 be functional as > > > > > > the > > > > > > ESP. So that means mounting it to /boot/efi. But I'm not sure > > > > > > off-hand > > > > > > how that's being treated in upstream OE around the notion of making > > > > > > an > > > > > > image that's what a UEFI system expects. > > > > > > > > > > Ideally this should be for all TI's K3 devices. I'm unfamiliar with > > > > > the > > > > > UEFI format and don't know if we currently follow it, however I like > > > > > the > > > > > idea of /boot/efi from what I googled. I also found raspian is using > > > > > /boot/firmware. Could this be less of a standard than I think? > > > > > > > > Keep in mind this is a generic OE on 64bit Arm problem and not a TI > > > > specific problem. Where to mount the ESP should have a consistent > > > > default. And it should look like it does on an off the shelf distro. > > > > > > > > > > While not an exact ESP partition, we are working on making our boot > > > partition as close as we can given ROM constraints. > > > > > > I'm running into the problem now of updating kernel on a live system, > > > would fail as we have mounted our boot partition over the rootfs boot/ > > > directory, so new images are not installed to the right spot/partition. > > > > > > Let's go with /boot/efi if that works for everyone. > > > > > > Bryan, could you re-send this with that change and the same for > > > sdimage-2part-efi.wks.in? > > > > The only feedback I would provide here is to work with the ROM team to > > fix whatever constraints prevent an "ESP" itself from being used as this > > will hinder the long term viability of the processors being widely > > supported. > > Haha, this debate has lasted so long that systemd-boot has standardized > mounting the ESP partition to just /efi now [1]. > > [1] https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-boot.html
Even systemd was having trouble trying to figure it out[2] ;) I'll respin this today with /boot/efi ~Bryan [2] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/3757
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#17022): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17022 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/92535778/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
