On 07/31/2015 07:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:29 +0800, He Zhe wrote: >> On 07/21/2015 10:53 PM, Christopher Larson wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:23 AM, <zhe...@windriver.com >>> <mailto:zhe...@windriver.com>>wrote: >>> >>> From: He Zhe <zhe...@windriver.com <mailto:zhe...@windriver.com>> >>> >>> To support building packaging and installing multi types of kernel >>> images, such as zImage uImage, at one time define KERNEL_IMAGETYPE >>> as a list. >>> Modify wherever reference KERNEL_IMAGETYPE accordingly. >>> >>> Fixes [YOCTO #6945]. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: He Zhe <zhe...@windriver.com >>> <mailto:zhe...@windriver.com>> >>> >>> >>> Question, why not add KERNEL_IMAGETYPES, and make KERNEL_IMAGETYPE equal to >>> your new KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0? >> Adding a new KERNEL_IMAGETYPES will also work. But it should be better >> not to change the name of KERNEL_IMAGETYPE, so that those who have >> used it don't have to change their code. >> >> Thank you for reviewing. > I have to agree with Chris here, keeping KERNEL_IMAGETYPE as used today > and equivalent to KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0 and adding KERNEL_IMAGETYPES does > seem like a cleaner way to implement this.
But it might mean we are going to check both KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_IMAGETYPES to generate final image type list. Is that OK? Thanks, Zhe > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
