From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:03:04 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the Makefile In-Reply-To: <201209212043.24712.marex@denx.de> (from marex@denx.de on Fri Sep 21 13:43:24 2012) Message-ID: <1348254184.19917.7@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 09/21/2012 01:43:24 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Scott Wood, > > 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. > > On the other hand, I use u-boot.bin and expect it to always be the > raw linked > binary of u-boot . What is U-Boot? Is it the thing that SPL loads, or is it the entire package that pops out when I tell the U-Boot makefiles to build something? Of course the raw binary of the thing that SPL loads would still be available under some new name. Or come up with a new name for the final output, but I think the number of people that care about the final output is larger than the number of people that care about the raw binary of the thing that SPL loads. As I said earlier, this is a situation where you can't please everyone, and I think it's better to have the current state of things be sane than to preserve one historical meaning of a particular target name rather than the other (originally there was no SPL and u-boot.bin was both the linker output and the final image to put into flash -- and this is still the case for many/most boards). -Scott