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

José Miguel Gonçalves
2012-09-19T18:44:36Z

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...