From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTWlndWVsIEdvbsOnYWx2ZXM=?= Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:26:49 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the Makefile In-Reply-To: <505C9231.6040602@ti.com> 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> <505C21BB.7000209@inov.pt> <20120921155258.D1892203200@gemini.denx.de> <505C9231.6040602@ti.com> Message-ID: <505C9549.4000501@inov.pt> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 21-09-2012 17:13, Tom Rini wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/21/12 08:52, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Jos? Miguel Gon?alves, >> >> In message <505C21BB.7000209@inov.pt> you wrote: >>>> 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? >> SoC specific make rules can probably be added to the respective SoC >> specific makefiles, thus still avoiding to clutter the top level >> Makefile with lots of conditionals. > Ideally? Yes, Possible today? Not sure. I have a hazy recollection > that it wasn't so easy when I tried adding some build rules to one of > the config.mk files. When I post SPI SPL for am335x support I'll try > again since for that I need to add a rule to generate a byte-swapped > MLO file. If that can go somewhere other than spl/Makefile that would > be nice (but needs to be visible to a number of TI SoCs is an issue). > So what is your suggestion for my patch? Can I push it with a new "u-boot-with-spl.bin" target and you'll handle the unification of all NAND targets later? Best regards, Jos? Gon?alves