Any thoughts or commentns on this? Should I send a formal patch?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 07:14:30PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> So, if systemd is required and to respect other VIRTUAL_RUNTIME vars, need to
> double the initramfs size to 128 MB.
>
> Yes, maybe systemd recipe in OE-Core needs more granular packaging for only
> pulling minimal dependencies in order to get even smaller...
>
> =========================
> diff --git
> a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> index c759808c..5ed9391e 100644
> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ TI_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES ?= ""
> RDEPENDS:${PN} += "\
> ${TI_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES} \
> ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} \
> + ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager} \
> + ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager} \
> + ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager} \
> + ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives} \
> + netbase \
> + base-files \
> base-passwd \
> initramfs-framework-base \
> initramfs-module-udev \
> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> index 223fef7a..ddf4e5b4 100644
> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ LICENSE = "MIT"
>
> INITRAMFS_FSTYPES = "cpio cpio.xz"
>
> -INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE = "65536"
> +INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE = "131072"
>
> IMAGE_NAME = "ti-core-initramfs"
> =========================
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:52:56PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is a fully correct change for the ti-core-initramfs.
> > It might be fine for the tisdk-tiny-initramfs though.
> >
> > If I recall, the requirement was for this initramfs to use systemd as
> > init manager...
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 12:27:37PM -0600, Ryan Eatmon via
> > lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> > > License-Update: Moving away from packagegroup-core-boot.bb removed the
> > > LICENSE setting. Just adding it back in.
> > >
> > > It looks like we were modelling this initramfs off of the wrong example
> > > from poky. This setup produces a much smaller initramfs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Eatmon <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > v2: Add missing License-Udate.
> > >
> > > .../packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb | 12 ++++---
> > > .../recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb | 33 +++++++++----------
> > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git
> > > a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > index 86b69aff..c759808c 100644
> > > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > @@ -1,16 +1,18 @@
> > > SUMMARY = "Minimal initramfs for boot requirements"
> > >
> > > -require recipes-core/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-boot.bb
> > > +LICENSE = "MIT"
> > > +
> > > +PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"
> > > +
> > > +inherit packagegroup
> > >
> > > TI_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES ?= ""
> > >
> > > RDEPENDS:${PN} += "\
> > > ${TI_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES} \
> > > + ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} \
> > > + base-passwd \
> > > initramfs-framework-base \
> > > initramfs-module-udev \
> > > initramfs-module-nfsrootfs \
> > > - nfs-utils \
> > > - nfs-utils-client \
> > > "
> > > -
> > > -RDEPENDS:${PN}:remove = "grub-efi kernel"
> > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > index 1a102d82..223fef7a 100644
> > > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/ti-core-initramfs.bb
> > > @@ -7,29 +7,26 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Image meant to probe boot essential
> > > modules\
> > >
> > > LICENSE = "MIT"
> > >
> > > -inherit core-image
> > > -
> > > -IMAGE_NAME = "ti-core-initramfs"
> > > -
> > > -IMAGE_NAME_SUFFIX = ""
> > > +INITRAMFS_FSTYPES = "cpio cpio.xz"
> > >
> > > -IMAGE_FEATURES:remove = "package-management"
> > > +INITRAMFS_MAXSIZE = "65536"
> > >
> > > -INITRAMFS_FSTYPES = "cpio cpio.xz"
> > > +IMAGE_NAME = "ti-core-initramfs"
> > >
> > > -IMAGE_FSTYPES = "${INITRAMFS_FSTYPES}"
> > > +export IMAGE_BASENAME = "${IMAGE_NAME}"
> > >
> > > PACKAGE_INSTALL = "packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs"
> > >
> > > -export IMAGE_BASENAME = "${IMAGE_NAME}"
> > > +# Ensure the initramfs only contains the bare minimum
> > > +IMAGE_FEATURES = ""
> > > +IMAGE_LINGUAS = ""
> > >
> > > -IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR = "1.1"
> > > +# on the kernel image.
> > > +PACKAGE_EXCLUDE = "kernel-image-*"
> > > +
> > > +IMAGE_FSTYPES = "${INITRAMFS_FSTYPES}"
> > > +IMAGE_NAME_SUFFIX ?= ""
> > > +IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE = "8192"
> > > +IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE = "0"
> > >
> > > -# To further reduce the size of the rootfs, remove the /boot directory
> > > from
> > > -# the final image this is usually done by adding RDEPENDS_kernel-base =
> > > ""
> > > -# in the configuration file. In our case we can't use this method.
> > > Instead we
> > > -# just wipe out the content of "/boot" before creating the image.
> > > -ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "empty_boot_dir; "
> > > -empty_boot_dir () {
> > > - rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/boot/*
> > > -}
> > > +inherit image
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#19458):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/19458
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/117180106/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
