[OE-core] [PATCH 4/8] kernel: Pull uImage generation into separate class

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 2015-05-12 10:15 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Monday 04 May 2015 23:41:47 Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 11:16:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 08:44:54 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>> On 2015-04-28 12:38 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> Pull the uImage image format generation from kernel.bbclass into
>>>>> a separate kernel-uimage.bbclass. The recipes which now need to
>>>>> generate an uImage will have to inherit kernel-uimage instead of
>>>>> kernel class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
>>>>> Cc: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> Cc: Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net>
>>>>> Cc: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Ross Burton <ross.burton at intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at windriver.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>    meta/classes/kernel-uimage.bbclass | 48
>>>>>    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>>>>
>>>>>    | 55 +++++++------------------------------- 2 files changed, 58
>>>>>
>>>>>    insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>>>>>    create mode 100644 meta/classes/kernel-uimage.bbclass
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE: The "inherit kernel-uimage" in kernel.bbclass should be changed
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>         something like "inherit kernel-${@d.getVar("KERNEL_IMAGETYPE",
>>>>>         True).lower()}" but the problem is that I only want to perform
>>>>>         the inheritance for uimage and fitimage, the other image types
>>>>>         don't need to inherit any additional special stuff.
>>>>>         Paul suggested I can do "inherit <empty here>". This would at
>>>>>         least let me implement a python function which returns either
>>>>>         "kernel-uimage", "kernel-fitimage" or "" and based on that, I
>>>>>         could inherit the particular image type specifics into
>>>>>         kernel.bbclass.
>>>>>         What I don't know how to implement well is this function which
>>>>>         returns those three strings based on the KERNEL_IMAGETYPE. What
>>>>>         I would like to avoid is encoding those strings explicitly into
>>>>>         the function, since that would force each new kernel image
>>>>>         format to also edit this function in kernel.bbclass .
>>>>>         Apparently, checking whether class exists and inheriting it
>>>>>         only if it does is also not a simple task.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed that this would be better. It would remove a lot of the checks
>>>> in the other tasks for the image type.
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Yes, that's indeed true. All the image type checks would disappear from
>>> kernel-uimage and kernel-fitimage bbclasses.
>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of the exact details on how to make this work, but
>>>> hopefully others have the foo.
>>
>> Any ideas please ?
>
> To me this is about how we wish to structure these classes. That's not my
> call, but to enumerate the options - unless I'm missing something we have to
> choose between:
>
> 1) Hardcode uimage/fitimage. Hard to extend.
>
> 2) inherit kernel-<type> and just insist that a class for every image type
> exists. Ugly and kernel-*.bbclass already exists.
>
> 3) Try to search for a kernel-<type> class and inherit it if one is found.
> AFAIK we don't do this kind of thing anywhere else so this doesn't seem right
> to me.
>
> 4) Establish some other mechanism for registering kernel image type classes
> (KERNEL_CLASSES ?). Not sure if we want to do this but it is at least a common
> mechanism elsewhere in the system.

I wasn't familiar with an option like this, but if we can do something
for the kernel classes that follows the existing patterns .. it makes
a lot of sense. I really don't want to invent something new here either.

So something along the lines of the way that image.bbclass works with
the IMAGE_CLASSES ?

Bruce

>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>