Hi, On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 07:50:42PM -0600, Peter Tyser wrote: > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile > index bb2465b..e56ec21 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile > @@ -310,6 +310,9 @@ $(obj)/zImage.iseries: vmlinux > $(obj)/uImage: vmlinux $(wrapperbits) > $(call if_changed,wrap,uboot) > > +$(obj)/uImage.fit.%: vmlinux $(obj)/%.dtb $(wrapperbits) > + $(call if_changed,wrap,uboot.fit,,$(obj)/$*.dtb) > + > $(obj)/cuImage.initrd.%: vmlinux $(obj)/%.dtb $(wrapperbits) > $(call if_changed,wrap,cuboot-$*,,$(obj)/$*.dtb,$(obj)/ramdisk.image.gz) > > @@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ install: $(CONFIGURE) $(addprefix $(obj)/, $(image-y)) > > # anything not in $(targets) > clean-files += $(image-) $(initrd-) cuImage.* dtbImage.* treeImage.* \ > - zImage zImage.initrd zImage.chrp zImage.coff zImage.holly \ > + uImage.* zImage zImage.initrd zImage.chrp zImage.coff zImage.holly \
Please no. It's not entirely uncommon that I will save a "known good" binary in the build tree for a while, by copying it aside with a different suffix. That'd give me one very big surprise in this case. -Olof _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
