[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] common: imx: Implement generic u-boot.nand target

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

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.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut