[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH] image_types_fsl.bbclass: deploy the bootimg (fat)

[Tzu-Jung Lee]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Otavio Salvador <
otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br> wrote:

> Hello Tzu-Jung,
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Tzu-Jung Lee <roylee17 at currantlabs.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Otavio Salvador
> > <otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Tzu-Jung Lee <roylee17 at currantlabs.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >> To be honest, I am trying to kill the class for long term and adding
> >> >> more and more stuff makes it harder. Why you don't make an image,
> >> >> which includes just the kernel and device tree files and use the
> >> >> normal OE-Core system to generate it? wic could to be used to
> generate
> >> >> the final image merging it all into a single .sdcard file.
> >> >
> >> > Agree. But, at the moment, we already generate the boot.img during the
> >> > SD
> >> > card image generation, this patch only copies that to the deploy
> >> > directory
> >> > so users can utilize them.
> >> >
> >> > Let me know if you think it make sense, and I'll generate a properly
> >> > indented patch.
> >>
> >> I think this is a too specific use case so I think it could be better
> >> served if you extend the class at your local layer.
> >
> >
> > You mean it's too specific to to DFU? or updating only bootimage (zImage
> > +DTB)?
> >
> > Considering if set the dfu_alt_info in u-boot:
> >
> >   setenv dfu_alt_info "image raw 0 0x800000;u-boot raw 0 0x4000;bootimg
> part
> > 0 1;rootfs part 0 2"
> >
> > this export the option to the host PC:
> >
> >   Found DFU: [0525:a4a5] devnum=0, cfg=1, intf=0, alt=0, name="image"
> >   Found DFU: [0525:a4a5] devnum=0, cfg=1, intf=0, alt=1, name="u-boot"
> >   Found DFU: [0525:a4a5] devnum=0, cfg=1, intf=0, alt=2, name="bootimg"
> >   Found DFU: [0525:a4a5] devnum=0, cfg=1, intf=0, alt=3, name="rootfs"
> >
> > In this case, we can update with the full sdcard image, or specify
> > individual images.
> > Currently, we already have all those images, it is just the bootimg is
> not
> > copied to the deploy directory.
> > We're not modifying existing images, or creating new customized images.
>
> I understand your use case and it is a really valid one, however the
> image class should die and instead we should move to the 'wic' for
> image generation[1].
>
> 1.
> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.0/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#creating-partitioned-images
>
> I don't want to keep adding more use cases to the class and instead
> focus in move away from it and, in midterm, remove it.
>
> Totally understood. I'll add it to my watch/todo list, and circle back when
we have further development.

Thanks,
Roy

> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale/attachments/20151029/afa6b704/attachment.html>