On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:23 PM Leon Woestenberg <l...@sidebranch.com> wrote: > > Hi Marek, Alex, > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On 09/18/2018 12:59 PM, Leon Woestenberg wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:38 PM Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > >> On 09/18/2018 12:22 PM, Leon Woestenberg wrote: > > >>> > > >>> There is no exception for INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE in > > >>> kernel-fitimage.bbclass. The initramfs will be packed inside the FIT, > > >>> in addition of also being packed inside the kernel. > > >> > > >> So why would you use initramfs_image_bundle with fitImage when you can > > >> pack the initrd into the fitImage instead ? > > >> > > > To be honest, I do not know that use-case anymore but it's a valid > > > configuration that shouldn't give an unexpected outcome. > > > > True > > > > > We also found a use-case for non-compressed kernels in the FIT image; > > > that was for very small delta-upgrades even when kernels are FIT > > > packed. Currently kernel-fitimage.bbclass hard-selects a compressed > > > kernel (such as zImage). > > > > Patches are welcome > > > Thanks for explaining the rationale behind the deploy stage, it > confirms Alex's suspicion I was solving the problem at the wrong > place. > > Alex, if you are still reading this: the answer is yes, please revert. >
I am :) Thanks for the discussion... I'll send the series I've got - whilst I was about it I cleaned up a bunch of other small things in the same area. -- Alex Kiernan -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
