[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the Makefile

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 09/21/2012 02:24:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Leave u-boot.bin be, that's the u-boot binary ...

So basically, argument by repetition. :-)

My point was that the introduction of SPL means there are two ways to  
interpret the phrase "the u-boot binary".

> the new name might be u-boot.img (as in flash image), what do you say  
> ?

Whatever, at least it doesn't have the SoC name in it.  But again I  
think you're causing more problems/confusion changing the final output  
name than changing the result of a particular objcopy operation.

-Scott