On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Op 18 dec. 2011, om 21:27 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven: > >> 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 ? > > I use the kernel.bbclass in meta-oe, that does what I need.
ok. I was just trying to wrap my head around the use case, since I'm missing something, and that would help me understand what is missing in the in kernel uImage generation scripts. With that, we could see about getting changes upstream to address deficiencies. Cheers, Bruce > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEARECAAYFAk7uWPsACgkQMkyGM64RGpHe8ACdEdFi1Nh17keaiRxAAWQI3Rh6 > 2CYAoKcYow2t+pnGOlJs7teSNB4IQARn > =3QuN > -----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
