On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 08:59:24AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/2026 5:35 AM, Shiva Tripathi wrote:
> >Register dynamic-layers/security in layer.conf with BBFILES_DYNAMIC
> >for both 'security' and 'tpm-layer' collections to conditionally
> >build LUKS encryption support when meta-security/meta-tpm layers
> >are present.
> >
> >Add meta-security to LAYERRECOMMENDS to document the optional
> >dependency for LUKS functionality.
> >
> >Update ti-core-initramfs.inc to auto-enable initramfs generation
> >when DISTRO_FEATURES contains 'luks'.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Shiva Tripathi <[email protected]>
> >---
> > meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf | 5 +++++
> > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
> >index f78da573..36d05b5a 100644
> >--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
> >+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
> >@@ -20,10 +20,15 @@ LAYERDEPENDS_meta-ti-bsp = " \
> > LAYERRECOMMENDS_meta-ti-bsp = " \
> > openembedded-layer \
> >+ meta-security \
> > "
>
> The layer should be same as below: security and tpm-layer I was
> just using meta-security as a placeholder.
Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that layer's collection name could be different
from layer's directory name. Some maintainers keep them the same (e.g.
meta-ti-bsp), but some make them different (e.g. meta-security -> security
and meta-tpm -> tpm-layer). It could be rather confusing...
> > BBFILES_DYNAMIC += " \
> >
> > openembedded-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/openembedded-layer/recipes*/*/*.bbappend
> > \
> >+ security:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bb \
> >+ security:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bbappend \
> >+ tpm-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bb \
> >+ tpm-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bbappend \
Moreover - is there really a need to set up security top level layer here? If
only TPM tools are needed, then just tpm-layer should be enough, even when it
comes from within meta-security git repository.
E.g., we set up openembedded-layer here, but that's not meta-openembedded top
level, but instead meta-oe sub-layer inside meta-openembedded. There are
sub-layers in there, which are not needed for meta-ti-bsp dependency. Same
thought goes to tpm-layer.
> > "
> > SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE += " \
> >diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
> >b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
> >index 9d3cc612..15c05e04 100644
> >--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
> >+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
> >@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> > # TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED = "0"
> > #
> >
> > #------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "${@ '1' if
> >d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES') or
> >d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL') else '0'}"
> >+TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "${@ '1' if
> >d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES') or
> >d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL') or
> >bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'luks', True, False, d) else '0'}"
> > TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES ?= ""
> > TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#19779):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/19779
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/118397821/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
