From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTWlndWVsIEdvbsOnYWx2ZXM=?= <jose.goncalves@inov.pt>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:13:47 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the
	Makefile
In-Reply-To: <20120921054348.E7801203200@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1348053927-16021-1-git-send-email-jose.goncalves@inov.pt>
	<1348053927-16021-11-git-send-email-jose.goncalves@inov.pt>
	<1348094385.22800.13@snotra> <505A55D1.9070807@ti.com>
	<1348097794.22800.20@snotra> <505A57F2.6000700@ti.com>
	<505A6580.2050102@inov.pt> <505A7171.60902@ti.com>
	<5FBF8E85CA34454794F0F7ECBA79798F379F6FD992@HQMAIL04.nvidia.com>
	<20120921054348.E7801203200@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <505C21BB.7000209@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

Hi Wolfgang,

On 09/21/2012 06:43 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> In message <5FBF8E85CA34454794F0F7ECBA79798F379F6FD992@HQMAIL04.nvidia.com> you wrote:
>> If you flash u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin, you'll get a fully functioning
>> U-Boot. There's an intermediate file (u-boot-dtb.bin) that I assume
>> is u-boot.bin+dtb - I'm not sure why it's left around - Allen could
>> comment here.
> I _dislike_ the idea of having image names which include architecture
> or even board parts.  I would really like to have generic names, that
> can be used in a consistent way across platforms, architectures and
> boards.
>
>> So in my eyes, all you really need is u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin - an
>> unwieldy name, to be sure, but it seems to satisfy your request for a
>> Soc identifier in the name. I voted for just having u-boot.bin be the
> Please reconsider.  I definitely do NOT want to have SoC names or that
> in any such images!
>
>
> IIRC, the original idea was to provide image names (common for all
> architectures, SoCs, boards) that only depend on where you install
> U-Boot to.  in this way, we would have:
>
> - u-boot.bin	for the generic case (say, for installation into NOR
>                  flash, no SPL or similar needed).
> - u-boot-nand.bin
> 		for installation in NAND (with all needed headers,
> 		padding etc. included)
> - u-boot-onenand.bin
> 		for installation in OneNAND
> - u-boot.sd	for installation on a SDCard
> 		[actually we have an inconsistency in names here; this
> 		should have been "u-boot-sd.bin" or maybe even better
> 		"u-boot-sdcard.bin"]
> etc.
>
> It is very important to me that we do NOT include any architectures,
> SoCs, or board specifc parts in the names because this will cause
> major PITA for all kind of automatic test suites etc.
>

To me this seems also a cleaner solution, as any end user, that simply 
takes the u-boot sources and performs a make, would easily find the 
appropriate file to burn on his boot media.

But in that case, as the NAND image format (for instance) is 
architecture and/or SoC dependant, what do you suggest is to add 
conditionals in the Makefile that adequate the 'u-boot-nand.bin' file to 
the target SoC?

Best regards,
Jos? Gon?alves