From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:33:15 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the
 Makefile
In-Reply-To: <20120921054348.E7801203200@gemini.denx.de> (from wd@denx.de on
	Fri Sep 21 00:43:48 2012)
Message-ID: <1348252395.19917.6@snotra>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 09/21/2012 12:43:48 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
> 
> In message  
> <5FBF8E85CA34454794F0F7ECBA79798F379F6FD992@HQMAIL04.nvidia.com> you  
> wrote:
> >
> > If you flash u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin, you'll get a fully functioning
> > U-Boot. There's an intermediate file (u-boot-dtb.bin) that I assume
> > is u-boot.bin+dtb - I'm not sure why it's left around - Allen could
> > comment here.
> 
> I _dislike_ the idea of having image names which include architecture
> or even board parts.  I would really like to have generic names, that
> can be used in a consistent way across platforms, architectures and
> boards.
> 
> > So in my eyes, all you really need is u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin - an
> > unwieldy name, to be sure, but it seems to satisfy your request for  
> a
> > Soc identifier in the name. I voted for just having u-boot.bin be  
> the
> 
> Please reconsider.  I definitely do NOT want to have SoC names or that
> in any such images!
> 
> 
> IIRC, the original idea was to provide image names (common for all
> architectures, SoCs, boards) that only depend on where you install
> U-Boot to.  in this way, we would have:
> 
> - u-boot.bin	for the generic case (say, for installation into NOR
>                 flash, no SPL or similar needed).
> - u-boot-nand.bin
> 		for installation in NAND (with all needed headers,
> 		padding etc. included)
> - u-boot-onenand.bin
> 		for installation in OneNAND
> - u-boot.sd	for installation on a SDCard
> 		[actually we have an inconsistency in names here; this
> 		should have been "u-boot-sd.bin" or maybe even better
> 		"u-boot-sdcard.bin"]
> etc.
> 
> It is very important to me that we do NOT include any architectures,
> SoCs, or board specifc parts in the names because this will cause
> major PITA for all kind of automatic test suites etc.

The awkwardness with naming based on nand/onenand/sd is that we no  
longer have build infrastructure that is specific to the type of boot  
device -- and IIRC with some of the newer SPL targets, the same image  
works on multiple types of boot device.

Having u-boot.bin be the final output regardless of internal  
implementation details such as spl would avoid that problem, and be  
even nicer to automated testing than the nand/onenand/sd names.

-Scott