On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 03:57:28PM -0600, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 2/11/2026 2:25 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 02:04:14PM -0600, Ryan Eatmon via > >lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > >>Clean up the logic of the new ti-core-initramfs to reduce the impact on > >>downstream layers. > >> > >>- Flip the logic in the machine .conf files to track the list of > >> required kernel modules for that platform, but if the variable is set > >> to "" then the ti-core-initramfs will not be created. > >> > >>- Redo the logic of when we require creation/usage of the initramfs to > >> just platforms that need it (ie that set > >> TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES). > >> > >>- Add a big switch to disable the initramfs entirely. In that case, the > >> user is on their own to make sure that the kernel has everything it > >> needs to boot either via config fragments to turn on the needed > >> modules, or by using the TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES > >> variable to populate their own initramfs. > > > >In our discussion we agreed to use TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES to > >determine whether to enable initramfs or not. While I don't mind adding > >a separate global TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED switch, but I now wonder if > >two checks are redundant and whether it makes sense to create initramfs > >even when the list of modules is empty, if it's enabled? > > I thought about this and went this way for a reason. If you want to > turn off the initramfs, but you still want the list of what modules > are required say for your own initramfs, then the list is gone. > Because the list was the switch. > > By splitting them into two lists, we gain the fact that we don't > force the initramfs on platforms that don't need it, and you can > still turn it all off if you want but have all of the infrastructure > in place to use it in your own layer later.
I think you missed my point - I'm not against the "enable" flag, but since we now have it explicitly, does it make sense to also build the initramfs with an empty modules list when the "enable" flag is set to "1"? > >Also see below for another comment. > > > > > >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc > >>@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ > >>+#------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>+# > >>+# To turn off the ti-core-initramfs.cpio creation just set: > >>+# > >>+# TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED = "0" > >>+# > >>+#------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>+TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "0" > > > >Did you mean to weakly set it to "1" here? :) > > Doh. I did. That was from testing. I'll send a v2. Good catch.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#19491): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/19491 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/117763070/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
