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

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:33:52PM +0100, Beno??t Th??baudeau wrote:
> 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.

I wonder how the rules start looking.  In the end, some way to say "Here
is the image to write to NAND, called u-boot-nand.bin" which will have
whatever board needs (say spl/u-boot-spl.bin + some header attached
followed by pad, followed by u-boot.img).  And also allow for
u-boot-nand.bin to be what someone else needs (say a different header on
u-boot-spl.bin), etc.

-- 
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/20130227/2d294fef/attachment.pgp>