| Summary: | Building a fitImage including INITRAMFS_IMAGE (wo/ BUNDLE) cause the kernel to depend on rootfs which is bad | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Yocto Project Subprojects] Kernel | Reporter: | Yannick Koehler <yannick.koehler> |
| Component: | kernel-tooling | Assignee: | Unassigned <unassigned> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Medium | CC: | adrian.freihofer, adrian.freihofer, otavio, ptsneves, randy.macleod, richard.purdie, tgamblin, yp.kernel.watcher, yp.watcher |
| Version: | 2.0.3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | Future | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | Yes (doc changes required) | |
|
Description
Yannick Koehler
2017-10-27 14:35:29 UTC
We need someone to write some tests for the fitImage. There are multiple things mentioned in this bug report and it is hard to understand exactly what is wrong. Can you break down the single most important thing you want fixed, in a simple way? @Randy we have quite a comprehensive self test at meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/fitimage.py. Would this help? This could probably be considered a duplicate of https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12912. The “wrong architecture” of kernel-fitimage.bbclass and the flexibility to create both bundled and unbundled kernel images in combination with fitImages create the complexity and ultimately the problems. Let's assume this is fixed now. The FIT image related code has been completely rewritten. Also, the architecture is now different. See also https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12912. If this is not the case, feel free to reopen this bug. |