On 27/07/2020 11:56, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 18:21 +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
On 20/07/2020 08:41, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 15:19 +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
This patch adds support for adding default config node even
when dtb is not part of the FIT image. The conf options are
therefore changed to point to kernel ID rather than dtb
ID when dtb does not exist.
Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.a...@arm.com>
---
meta/classes/kernel-fitimage.bbclass | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
I keep asking someone to start providing tests for kernel-fitimage
but nobody does. Its near impossible to tell whether this is a good
change or one that could cause someone else problems as we have
little documented behaviour and no tests.
Could someone please start looking at adding some (and
documentation)?
There are different components that can be added to a FIT image.
This include kernel, ramdisk, dtb, etc. However, it is not necessary
for any individual component to be part of the FIT image. In reality,
you can have 0-N (0 to N) kernels and/or 0-N ramdisks and/or 0-N
dtbs.
However, kernel-fitimage.bbclass currently only supports limited
usescases: adding 1 (no more or less) kernel with 1-N dtbs and 0-1
ramdisks.
Before support was added for multiple dtbs, the configuration of FIT
image without any dtbs was supported.
This patchset adds back the original support to kernel-
fitimage.bbclass
for building a FIT image when no dtbs are present. i.e. adds support
for
1 kernel with 0-N dtbs. It doesnot affect the existing usecases, but
adds back support for a usecase (0 dtb) that originally existed and
was
removed as a mistake.
I have submitted a v2 of this patch which better documents the code I
have submitted so that hopefully its not blocked on the testing and
documentation of the entire kernel-fitimage. It also always creates a
configuration for FIT image.
I guess i have spent some time debugging kernel-fitimage so am happy
to help with the documentation. I guess you would like a high level
description of kernel-fitimage at the top of this file as a seperate
patch?
I havent worked with the test framework for oe-core so not sure how
helpful i could be on that. I tried to look for example test cases
that
would test any of the existing meta/classes/kernel*.bbclass but
couldnt
find any.
Hopefully the extra documentation in v2 and the explanation would be
useful in understanding and progressing this patch.
Sorry for the delayed reply. Thanks for adding the extra info, it does
help.
By documentation, I mean that kernel-fitimage.bbclass has no
information in the reference manual:
https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/latest/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#ref-classes-kernel-fitimage
generated from:
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/yocto-docs/tree/documentation/ref-manual/ref-classes.xml
and also there is also no header at the start of the class saying what
it does or how to use it.
Could we add something to these locations to give more information
about the class?
For testing, have a look at
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/imagefeatures.py. Its testing target image
rootfs settings but I believe the concept is similar to how you'd test
something like the kernel-fitimage class.
You can run these tests individually with "oe-selftest -r
imagefeatures" to run that file or "oe-selftest -r
imagefeatures.ImageFeatures.test_bmap" as an example of a specific
test.
Cheers,
Richard
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. I will submit the documentation and the tests in
the next couple of days.
Regards,
Usama
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#141058):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/141058
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/75612723/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
