On 07/13/2011 04:24 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 18:11 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: >> On 07/12/2011 05:52 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: >>> On 07/12/2011 06:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On 07/12/2011 05:37 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: >>>>> On 07/12/2011 05:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>> On 07/12/2011 04:24 PM, Joshua Lock wrote: >>>>>>> This is for use in the Hob GUI to enable the user to change the type >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> generated image. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock<[email protected]> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> meta/classes/image_types.bbclass | 2 ++ >>>>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>>>> b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>>>> index 89a745c..29d7a57 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>>>> +++ b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass >>>>>>> @@ -102,3 +102,5 @@ IMAGE_DEPENDS_cpio.xz = "xz-native" >>>>>>> IMAGE_DEPENDS_ubi = "mtd-utils-native" >>>>>>> IMAGE_DEPENDS_ubifs = "mtd-utils-native" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +# This variable is available to request which values are suitable >>>>>>> for IMAGE_FSTYPES >>>>>>> +IMAGE_TYPES = "jffs2 cramfs ext2 ext2.gz ext3 ext3.gz squashfs >>>>>>> squashfs-lzma ubi ubifs" >>>>>> >>>>>> Concept is fine, but please don't list ubi and ubifs just list ubi. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the [brokwn] rule to explicitly build ubifs should also be >>>>> purged? >>>> >>>> Nope, that's how the ubi is created. Essentially at the time anyhow, OE >>>> didn't make it too easy to add in an image that needs to be in a >>>> container to be used. So we have the ubifs rule (yes, that needs a >>>> cherry-pick from oe.dev) for 'advanced' users and the ubi rule to create >>>> a simple ubi image. >>> >>> I might be missing something, but I don't see why this rule is necessary >>> in image_types.bbclass: >>> IMAGE_CMD_ubifs = "mkfs.ubifs -r ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} -o >>> ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.ubifs.img ${MKUBIFS_ARGS}" >>> >>> Having it there leads to the confusion (I was) that ubifs was useful. >>> >>> At least for me, I can build ubi images with that rule removed. >> >> OK, refreshed my memory again. We have ubifs (and it might indeed need >> some quick kicking/fixing) target (a) since that's what was there to >> start with, but not quite enough (b) for advanced users. There is a >> point to making a ubifs image which is when you're making a complex ubi >> volume (either outside of OE or in your collection/layer that provides a >> more complex ubinize conf). >> >> The problem in oe-core today is that we were using non-standard >> extensions on the ubifs part to try and distinguish between usable >> standalone files (ubi) and parts (ubifs). > > Surely if you're doing this extra processing, you could just define the > IMAGE_CMD_ubifs variable too? > > I'm a little worried about having something there that is effectively > unusable on its own...
Well, ubifs is unusable without being in a ubi contanier. But a ubi container can have anything in it, we just make a simple container to give people a starting point. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
