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

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 01:36:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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.

I suck at naming.  I admit it.  And I've written, read, rewritten a
reply a few times now.  So, lets go with this.  u-boot.bin is the "I
just need u-boot, in binary form, to boot".  Lets try
u-boot-with-spl.bin as "I just need spl, some padding and u-boot, as
bins, to boot".

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20120919/4773dd16/attachment.pgp>