On 05/07/2013 06:40 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:07:10PM -0400, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> + cd ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}
>>>>> + rm -f ${UBOOT_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_BINARY}
>>>>> + rm -f ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_BINARY}
>>>>> + rm -f ${UBOOT_SPI_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SPI_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_BINARY}
>>>>> + rm -f ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_SYMLINK}
>>>>> + ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_BINARY}
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> As we just spoke - let's try to generalize this format and combine it with
>>>> other similar requirements, like SPL-UART etc. There was a thread back in
>>>> February about this...
>>
>> This is where I have disagreement. Let us restart the discussion. Who are
>> the stake holders? Discuss it in this thread rather than using an old
>> thread. I have copied here Carlos. I don't have bandwidth to spend too much
>> time on this. Let us discuss it and identify what is required to be done.
>
> Sure, let's discuss. I encourage everyone to participate, especially Carlos
> and Tom.
We should try and get the generic u-boot.inc to allow for a few
different variables to be set by the machine.conf file, and if they are,
copy/symlink them as needed. I think we should try and fit the SPI
selection into the generic u-boot-with-spl.bin framework that exists in
u-boot today if we can, and then add some logic so that we can package
and symlink that single file instead.
--
Tom
_______________________________________________
meta-ti mailing list
meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
