On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 06:18:15 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Tuesday 12 May 2015 11:38:14 Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > On 2015-05-12 10:15 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > On Monday 04 May 2015 23:41:47 Marek Vasut wrote: > > >> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 11:16:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > >>> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 08:44:54 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > >>>> On 2015-04-28 12:38 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > >>>>> Pull the uImage image format generation from kernel.bbclass into > > >>>>> a separate kernel-uimage.bbclass. The recipes which now need to > > >>>>> generate an uImage will have to inherit kernel-uimage instead of > > >>>>> kernel class. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > > >>>>> Cc: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > > >>>>> Cc: Koen Kooi <[email protected]> > > >>>>> Cc: Paul Eggleton <[email protected]> > > >>>>> Cc: Ross Burton <[email protected]> > > >>>>> Cc: Bruce Ashfield <[email protected]> > > >>>>> --- > > >>>>> > > >>>>> meta/classes/kernel-uimage.bbclass | 48 > > >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ meta/classes/kernel.bbclass > > >>>>> > > >>>>> | 55 +++++++------------------------------- 2 files changed, 58 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > > >>>>> create mode 100644 meta/classes/kernel-uimage.bbclass > > >>>>> > > >>>>> NOTE: The "inherit kernel-uimage" in kernel.bbclass should be > > >>>>> changed to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> something like "inherit > > >>>>> kernel-${@d.getVar("KERNEL_IMAGETYPE", True).lower()}" but > > >>>>> the problem is that I only want to perform the inheritance > > >>>>> for uimage and fitimage, the other image types don't need > > >>>>> to inherit any additional special stuff. Paul suggested I > > >>>>> can do "inherit <empty here>". This would at least let me > > >>>>> implement a python function which returns either > > >>>>> "kernel-uimage", "kernel-fitimage" or "" and based on > > >>>>> that, I could inherit the particular image type specifics > > >>>>> into kernel.bbclass. > > >>>>> What I don't know how to implement well is this function > > >>>>> which returns those three strings based on the > > >>>>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPE. What > > >>>>> I would like to avoid is encoding those strings explicitly > > >>>>> into > > >>>>> the function, since that would force each new kernel image > > >>>>> format to also edit this function in kernel.bbclass . > > >>>>> Apparently, checking whether class exists and inheriting it > > >>>>> only if it does is also not a simple task. > > >>>> > > >>>> Agreed that this would be better. It would remove a lot of the > > >>>> checks in the other tasks for the image type. > > >>> > > >>> Hi! > > >>> > > >>> Yes, that's indeed true. All the image type checks would disappear > > >>> from kernel-uimage and kernel-fitimage bbclasses. > > >>> > > >>>> I'm not aware of the exact details on how to make this work, but > > >>>> hopefully others have the foo. > > >> > > >> Any ideas please ? > > > > > > To me this is about how we wish to structure these classes. That's not > > > my call, but to enumerate the options - unless I'm missing something > > > we have to choose between: > > > > > > 1) Hardcode uimage/fitimage. Hard to extend. > > > > > > 2) inherit kernel-<type> and just insist that a class for every image > > > type exists. Ugly and kernel-*.bbclass already exists. > > > > > > 3) Try to search for a kernel-<type> class and inherit it if one is > > > found. AFAIK we don't do this kind of thing anywhere else so this > > > doesn't seem right to me. > > > > > > 4) Establish some other mechanism for registering kernel image type > > > classes > > > (KERNEL_CLASSES ?). Not sure if we want to do this but it is at least a > > > common mechanism elsewhere in the system. > > > > I wasn't familiar with an option like this, but if we can do something > > for the kernel classes that follows the existing patterns .. it makes > > a lot of sense. I really don't want to invent something new here either. > > > > So something along the lines of the way that image.bbclass works with > > the IMAGE_CLASSES ? > > Indeed, that's what I was referring to.
Doesn't that mean it would be possible for kernel.bbclass to inherit multiple classes -- for example kernel-uimage.bbclass and kernel-fitimage.bbclass -- at the same time ? Won't that make it impossible to remove the kernel type checks in kernel-uimage.bbclass ? But maybe having those checks in place is the right thing to do since there might be a target building both fitImage and uImage at the same time? -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
