On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 07/14/11 12:21, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> Op 14 jul 2011, om 18:20 heeft Kumar Gala het volgende geschreven: >> >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/14/11 09:40, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Op 14 jul 2011, om 15:13 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven: >>>>> >>>>>> On 07/14/11 09:05, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>>>> Is there a list of which IMAGE_FSTYPES are supported. I didn't see >>>>>>> anything in the docs. Looking to see if a u-boot 'mkimage' wrapped set >>>>>>> of images is supported or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not 100% where the list is, but I can confirm that >>>>>> uImages are supported and work nicely. Assuming that >>>>>> you are talking about the common use case, and not something >>>>>> more exotic :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think he means partitioned uimages where you have a kernel + initrd in >>>>> a single uimage. We don't support that *yet*, but all the needed blocks >>>>> are there. And we finally get a usecase for having the loadadresses in >>>>> the machine.conf files :) >>>> >>>> Yah, that's what I wondered as well. I've done this locally, >>>> but nothing out of the box .. so I had nagging doubts! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> What's the IMAGE_FSTYPE for a normal uImage ? >> >> None, it's built by the kernel class, not the rootfs class. > > and to expand a bit, the machine conf would have: > > KERNEL_IMAGETYPE = "uImage" > > So the kernel class will build and produce a uImage for deployment.
Ah, so there isnt support for getting a ramdisk wrapped via mkimage. - k _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
