Hi Ryan, 
On 6/10/26 18:07, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/10/2026 5:26 AM, Yogesh Hegde wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/9/26 19:35, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/9/2026 5:30 AM, Yogesh Hegde wrote:
>>>> Beaglebadge has only 256Mb OSPI flash and except for
>>>> arago-bootstrap-base-image and arago-tiny-image other arago images
>>>> doesn't fit into OSPI flash. Hence remove ubifs and ubi from
>>>> IMAGE_FSTYPES to prevent unnecessary image generation and build
>>>> failures when adding packages to the arago-default-image.
>>>>
>>>> Those who want to run arago-bootstrap-base-image and arago-tiny-image
>>>> on OSPI can enable UBIFS in local.conf .
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yogesh Hegde <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>>    meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf | 2 --
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf 
>>>> b/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf
>>>> index 78525030..5295296d 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf
>>>> +++ b/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf
>>>> @@ -4,8 +4,6 @@
>>>>      require conf/machine/include/am62lxx.inc
>>>>    -IMAGE_FSTYPES += "ubifs ubi"
>>>> -
>>>
>>> If you are going to remove that then shouldn't ALL of the UBI settings 
>>> (below) also be removed as it does not make sense to configure something we 
>>> are not building?
>>
>> The intention behind keeping `MKUBIFS_ARGS` and `UBINIZE_ARGS` is to give a 
>> reference for those who want to enable UBIFS
>> via local.conf. They don't have to calculate these values.
>>   Machine config still defines the hardware max limits while users get to 
>> choose if they build UBIFS or not.
>>
>> If this is not valid reason, I will send a v2 with fixes.
> 
> Please remove them.  If we are saying that we should not support UBI on this 
> machine, then we should not pretend to support it.  If someone needs to 
> recover those then they can look at the git logs and see what the values were 
> when we removed it.
> 
> On the other hand, if we are saying that UBI is supported then we should not 
> be turning it off and instead work to address the bigger issue of not 
> building UBI for the default image.
> 
> What is the actual issue we are trying to address?  We have not seen any 
> build issues related to this platform that would spark the need for this 
> patch.  Please provide a little more context so that we can choose the best 
> course to address it.

This error was observed during 12.0 and occurs when meta-tisdk layer is 
included. 

Here is the build log - 
https://gist.github.com/yogeshhegde/20e8342efd1a3ab1a20c9d4398287ae3 
config.txt - 
https://gist.github.com/yogeshhegde/974d90cb384c7c47e2d3af7f28cdf3b1 
Temporary fix in meta-tisdk - 
https://github.com/TexasInstruments/meta-tisdk/commit/7dbee113d4a1eaf46fb4c6a0981eb86300263d75
 

-- Yogesh

> 
> 
> 
>>>
>>>
>>>>    MKUBIFS_ARGS ?= "-F -m 4096 -e 258048 -c 8500"
>>>>      UBINIZE_ARGS ?= "-m 4096 -p 256KiB -s 1024 -O 1024"
>>>
>>
> 



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#20039): 
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/20039
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/119720440/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to