From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:36:50 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the Makefile In-Reply-To: <20120919181945.GC12703@bill-the-cat> (from trini@ti.com on Wed Sep 19 13:19:45 2012) Message-ID: <1348079810.22800.5@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 09/19/2012 01:19:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:11:08AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jos? Miguel Gon?alves wrote: > > > On 19-09-2012 17:10, Scott Wood wrote: > > >> On 09/19/2012 06:25:26 AM, Jos? Miguel Gon?alves wrote: > > >>> Samsung's S3C24XX SoCs need this in order to generate a binary > image > > >>> with a padded SPL concatenated with U-Boot. > > >> > > >> I still think "pad" is a lousy name for this. It refers to a > minor > > >> implementation detail of how the image was put together. > > >> > > >> If you don't like the suggestions in > > >> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-September/134191.html, how > > >> about > > >> "u-boot-with-spl.bin"? > > > > > > I used a suggestion made by Christian Riesch and accepted by Tom > Rini. > > Sorry for the churn, really, but.. > > > > I'm totally cool with any name that the U-Boot core maintainers > would > > > like to use, though I would prefer a shorter name than > > > "u-boot-with-spl.bin" because I'm lazy and don't like to type too > many > > > keys when I upgrade by tftp :-) Because of that I think I would > prefer > > > "u-boot-all.bin". So, everybody agrees with that name? > > > > Hmmm. What does "all" mean? It's not that descriptive. > > > > On Tegra we currently have: > > > > u-boot-spl.bin - just SPL. > > u-boot.bin - just main U-Boot, I think. > > u-boot-dtb.bin - main U-Boot plus an appended DTB, I think. > > u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin - SPL+U-Boot+DTB. > > As this, and other examples show, there's not really good generic > names. > Go with u-boot.s3c24xx as the target and output, please. This is > consistent with the other targets and outputs where we throw something > that identifies the SoC/etc into the target/name. So we're just going to duplicate this rule with a different name for every target that just needs a simple concatenation? Like the bad old days of having a rule for every target in the makefile? Come on. Plus, I don't like using a semi-generic name in the output file because it then looks to the user as if this is a U-Boot that covers that entire family of devices, rather than just the target it was built for. At least with fully generic names like "u-boot.bin" it should be obvious to most people that it doesn't cover every single target. If we must have a non-generic output name, base it on the actual target name using a pattern rule -- but I do not see what's wrong with a generic name. Not necessarily something that works for every target -- that's a strawman -- just something that describes the output of this rule in a way that isn't overly specific. -Scott