On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Op 18 dec. 2011, om 20:47 heeft Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov het volgende > geschreven: > >> As per org.oe.dev and meta-oe's kernel.bbclass move uImage creation to >> separate task from do_deploy. This way the do_install task can also >> benefit from generated uImage. >> >> The only major feature of oe-core's version (not to recreate uImage >> if it exists) is retained in this patch. > > I still don't agree with that behaviour. The in-kernel uImage code is just > like the in-kernel defconfigs: useless for people who aren't kernel > developers.
In that case, shouldn't people doing u-boot development (or other non-kernel developers), be building a uImage via something that isn't in kernel.bbclass ? Cheers, Bruce > >> On the contra, as this version >> was merged from meta-oe/org.oe.dev, new function has another feature: >> it permits overriding the u-boot entrypoint via u-boot symbol. > > No it doesn't, since it doesn't recreate uImage. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEARECAAYFAk7uSX8ACgkQMkyGM64RGpGCLwCgtXQaYv3fu3891FMVs9AK8hK7 > z8QAniVSDXosv3RBKp0GYUnqfCXck2bD > =UYJG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
