From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Miguel_Gon=E7alves?= <jose.goncalves@inov.pt>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:44:36 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the
	Makefile
In-Reply-To: <20120919181945.GC12703@bill-the-cat>
References: <1348071053.22800.1@snotra> <5059F99E.6030004@inov.pt>
	<5059FCAC.3060400@wwwdotorg.org>
	<20120919181945.GC12703@bill-the-cat>
Message-ID: <505A1294.8050302@inov.pt>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 19-09-2012 19:19, 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.
>

I'm fine with throwing something that identifies the SoC into the u-boot image name.
In that case I would suggest using instead "u-boot.s3c", because, AFAIK, all 
Samsung's S3C SoCs that support NAND/SD boot through an internal ROM use raw 
images to boot and would be fine with this format. Nevertheless, before I proceed 
with the change, a confirmation for this from someone with a better knowledge of 
Samsung SoCs would be nice...