Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] meta: Deploy DTBs once per kernel

["'Jan Kiszka' via isar-users" <isar-users@googlegroups.com>]

On 20.04.26 18:06, Zhihang Wei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/17/26 16:42, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 17.04.26 16:17, Zhihang Wei wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/13/26 09:01, 'Jan Kiszka' via isar-users wrote:
>>>> On 13.02.26 08:40, Anton Mikanovich wrote:
>>>>> From: Uladzimir Bely <ubely@ilbers.de>
>>>>>
>>>>> Task do_copy_boot_files deploys DTB files into the same location for
>>>>> different images (e.g., isar-image-base and isar-image-ci). This
>>>>> causes
>>>>> a build error.
>>>>>
>>>>> do_copy_boot_files is called once for every image recipe while dtb
>>>>> files
>>>>> belong to the kernel which is the same for both images. Performing dtb
>>>>> deployment once for the same kernel solves the issue.
>>>>>
>>>> This remains inconsistent: DTBs are just another artifact of the
>>>> kernel.
>>> Since DTB belongs to the kernel and should stay with it, how about
>>> moving both kernel and DTB deployment together into a separate recipe,
>>> rather than keeping them in the image generation process? Logically,
>>> the deployment of these artifacts does not belong to the image
>>> generation process. With this approach, kernel and DTB are only
>>> deployed once, DTB names remain the same. We do have one API change
>>> here, kernel image names are no longer prefixed with the image name.
>> The image selects the kernel it wants (and thus also the DTBs). We could
>> create a meta recipe/package that expresses this selection and deploy
>> from there, but it will cause quick some churn down the line as well.
>> I'm also not sure if it will actually change anything our problem this
>> way because in the end it is about deploying twice, not about from where
>> (image or some recipe).
>>
>> Jan
>>
> If the kernel/DTB deployment becomes a separate task and image creation
> depends on it, wouldn't the second image simply reuse the
> already-completed task rather than deploying again? The dependency would
> be marked as done, so the "deploying twice" issue should be avoided.
> 
> Did I miss something here?

Isn't the main problem that two different images with different
parameters (distros...) may deploy to the same path? This is why I say
it's irrelevant from where we deploy, what matters is the destination.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "isar-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/d518e461-056b-46f0-80b9-1b76ed3a8018%40siemens.com.