Op 13 jul 2011, om 16:10 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
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.
Being able to generate a eaw ubifs is usefull when you already have
the container and only want to reflash, but don't want to trash the
ubi erase cycle count.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
