From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt_Th=C3=A9baudeau?= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:33:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] common: imx: Implement generic u-boot.nand target In-Reply-To: <201302260819.43138.marex@denx.de> References: <1361823013.27903.8@snotra> <1361833645.27903.15@snotra> <954640255.109456.1361836253032.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <201302260819.43138.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <1636401851.120330.1361878432310.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:19:42 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau, > > > Dear Scott Wood, > > > > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:07:25 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On 02/25/2013 05:03:30 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > Dear Scott Wood, > > > > > > > > > So maybe we need a more general (but optional) CONFIG_BUILD_TARGET. > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate? > > > > > > Same as CONFIG_SPL_TARGET, but not SPL-specific. Basically a way for a > > > board config file to add to $(ALL-y). > > > > > > > > So each one would set the appropriate CONFIG_BUILD_TARGET for > > > > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > needs to get built, and then something like CONFIG_NAND_IMAGE could > > > > > hold the image name that should be linked to produce a standard > > > > > u-boot-nand.bin output. > > > > > > > > Yea, sounds reasonable. But why call it CONFIG_ , it can't be stored > > > > in the > > > > board.h files, it has to be somewhere in the Makefile hierarchy. > > > > > > Why can't it go in the board.h files? > > > > We could do all that, but should we? As I said to Marek, I think that it's > > a big mistake to omit the SPL here. The only other solution to get a > > reliable boot would be the DBBT, but it's very hard to use in real life, > > away from a production line. The SPL is really easy to enable here, and > > it's only a matter of time before someone gets bitten by this lack of > > reliability, so why not just do things right? The boot time and footprint > > of an SPL would really be negligible, and it's not because other > > implementations omit both SPL and a valid DBBT that U-Boot should do the > > same. > > I'm not against SPL, but then we're starting to drift away from the whole > idea > of generating u-boot-nand.bin or similar image. Being able to generate > u-boot- > nand.bin or u-boot-sd.bin etc ... on a per-CPU basis (since this is CPU > specific) is the ultimate goal here, whatever is embedded in the image. OK, I didn't know that this was your goal here. If the contents of the image do not matter, then my u-boot-with-nand-spl.imx could be renamed into your u-boot-nand.bin with the appropriate FCB header, and CONFIG_SPL_TARGET could be changed to something more generic as Scott explained. Best regards, Beno?t