Re: [PATCH tegra-cbootimage-configs] Add Tegra20 Tamonten configurations

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-RM9K5IK7kjKj5M59NBduVrNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1957 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:10:58PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/04/2013 12:59 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:50:55AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 04/04/2013 03:30 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> In addition to providing the BCT configuration that is common
> >>> for all Tegra20 Tamonten-derived boards, add scripts to build
> >>> images that can be flashed to NAND for the Plutux, Medcom-Wide
> >>> and TEC boards.
> >> 
> >> I wonder why there's a need for board-specific sub-directories?
> >> After all, those boards all use the same BCT file, and the image
> >> config files are all identical.
> > 
> > I could probably rework it to just generate one image that uses
> > the standard BCT and the u-boot.bin binary/symlink, which should
> > work just as well. So if the user wanted to build for different
> > boards they'd need to replace u-boot.bin and rerun the script.
> > 
> > Does that sound any better?
> 
> That sounds better.
> 
> Either that, or perhaps create a separate top-level directory for each
> board, and just symlink the BCT file from one common directory, or
> even duplicate it. That would still allow the user to have one
> directory of binaries per board, so remove the need to multiplex.

I'm not sure I understand correctly. Is this what you're proposing?

	tegra20-tamonten
	|-- tegra20-tamonten.bct.cfg
	|-- tegra20-tamonten.img.cfg
	tegra20-plutux
	|-- tegra20-tamonten.bct.cfg --> ../tegra20-tamonten/tegra20-tamonten.bct.cfg
	|-- tegra20-tamonten.img.cfg --> ../tegra20-tamonten/tegra20-tamonten.img.cfg
	|-- build.sh
	|-- u-boot.bin --> /path/to/u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin

And build.sh would generate the tegra20-tamonten.bct and build it into
tegra20-tamonten.img using tegra20-tamonten.img.cfg and u-boot.bin. Is
that it?

How is that be different from the current method? What is the advantage
over what the current scripts do?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]