Re: [master/wrynose][PATCH] beaglebadge-ti: avoid building ubifs and ubi for beaglebadge by default

On 6/10/2026 5:26 AM, Yogesh Hegde wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/9/26 19:35, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/9/2026 5:30 AM, Yogesh Hegde wrote:
>>> Beaglebadge has only 256Mb OSPI flash and except for
>>> arago-bootstrap-base-image and arago-tiny-image other arago images
>>> doesn't fit into OSPI flash. Hence remove ubifs and ubi from
>>> IMAGE_FSTYPES to prevent unnecessary image generation and build
>>> failures when adding packages to the arago-default-image.
>>>
>>> Those who want to run arago-bootstrap-base-image and arago-tiny-image
>>> on OSPI can enable UBIFS in local.conf .
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yogesh Hegde <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>    meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf | 2 --
>>>    1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf b/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf
>>> index 78525030..5295296d 100644
>>> --- a/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf
>>> +++ b/meta-beagle/conf/machine/beaglebadge-ti.conf
>>> @@ -4,8 +4,6 @@
>>>      require conf/machine/include/am62lxx.inc
>>>    -IMAGE_FSTYPES += "ubifs ubi"
>>> -
>>
>> If you are going to remove that then shouldn't ALL of the UBI settings (below) also be removed as it does not make sense to configure something we are not building?
> 
> The intention behind keeping `MKUBIFS_ARGS` and `UBINIZE_ARGS` is to give a reference for those who want to enable UBIFS
> via local.conf. They don't have to calculate these values.
>   
> Machine config still defines the hardware max limits while users get to choose if they build UBIFS or not.
> 
> If this is not valid reason, I will send a v2 with fixes.

Please remove them.  If we are saying that we should not support UBI on 
this machine, then we should not pretend to support it.  If someone 
needs to recover those then they can look at the git logs and see what 
the values were when we removed it.

On the other hand, if we are saying that UBI is supported then we should 
not be turning it off and instead work to address the bigger issue of 
not building UBI for the default image.

What is the actual issue we are trying to address?  We have not seen any 
build issues related to this platform that would spark the need for this 
patch.  Please provide a little more context so that we can choose the 
best course to address it.



>>
>>
>>>    MKUBIFS_ARGS ?= "-F -m 4096 -e 258048 -c 8500"
>>>      UBINIZE_ARGS ?= "-m 4096 -p 256KiB -s 1024 -O 1024"
>>
> 

-- 
Ryan Eatmon                [email protected]
-----------------------------------------
Texas Instruments, Inc.  -  LCPD  -  MGTS