On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 12:04 +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > ср, 18 сент. 2019 г. в 01:16, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 18:36 +0300, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Now I understand more about how this configuration file is being > > used, > > should it be called image-uefi.conf ? > > Fine, I will rename the conf file > > > I feel really strongly that we do not want an uefi.bbclass, its > > simply > > not warranted and will just continue to expand the current mess of > > classes. If all we need it for is some functions, those functions > > should be added elsewhere. > > As those EFI_PROVIDER bootloader classes are called only form > live-vm-common, maybe I should just add them to live-vm-common and > make individual classes _append those functions?
That sounds much better. > > I'm also on the lookout for tests of these kinds of codepaths. Code > > is > > much more likely to be accepted if tests are added for it. I'm not > > quite sure what would make most sense here in this case buts its a > > general point I will be pushing for going forward. > > What kind of tests would you like? This code already exists and is > called as a part of any live image generation. I think these patches are ok, you hinted this was part of a larger set of changes and I'm worried about the fit/signed image/uboot codepaths though which are in a similar area to some of this. Its something to be mindful of as if changes are made to something which isn't currently tested I will be asking for tests. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
