From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pieter Smith Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:51:15 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 3/7] barebox: support custom barebox output image name In-Reply-To: <57059689.8070200@mind.be> References: <1458513351-6556-1-git-send-email-pieter@boesman.nl> <1458513351-6556-4-git-send-email-pieter@boesman.nl> <5702F6AD.1030402@mind.be> <20160406201410.GA5332@smipidev> <57059689.8070200@mind.be> Message-ID: <20160408075115.GA20544@smipidev> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:06:49AM +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 04/06/16 22:14, Pieter Smith wrote: > >Hi Arnout / Thomas, > > > >On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:20:13AM +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > [snip] > >> However, on second thought I'm wondering if it is really needed. For u-boot > >>or the kernel, we always copy the images with the same name as they were > >>built. If that is not what the ROM boot loader expects, the name can be > >>changed in the image generation script. For example, genimage.cfg could > >>contain: > >> > >>image boot.vfat { > >> vfat { > >> file MLO { > >> "barebox-am33xx-beaglebone-mlo.img" > >> } > >> file barebox.img { > >> "barebox-am33xx-beaglebone.img" > >> } > >> } > >> size = 8M > >>} > >> > >> > >> What do you think? > > > >I agree that this is cleaner from a buildroot perspective. But this would > >require carrying a genimage.cfg patch for barebox as part of > >beaglebone_barebox_defconfig. Is this what you are suggesting? > > I don't really understand what you mean. As I suggested in that patch, it > would be nice to add a genimage config as well. When you do that, you can > use a fragment like above to make sure the files will have the correct name > in the filesystem. (Like above, except I screwed up the indentation :-) The vfat file attribute also expects an "image=" key, not just the image name. Thanks! This will be in v5 of the patch-set. [snip] - Pieter Smith