From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:11:08 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the Makefile In-Reply-To: <5059F99E.6030004@inov.pt> References: <1348071053.22800.1@snotra> <5059F99E.6030004@inov.pt> Message-ID: <5059FCAC.3060400@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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. > > 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. Also, some have argued that they want to append a DTB outside the U-Boot build process, so does "all" include SPL+U-Boot or SPL+U-Boot+DTB, or ...?