Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] fdt: Replace u-boot-dtb.bin with u-boot.bin

[Simon Glass]

Hi Hans,

On 28 January 2016 at 01:25, Hans de Goede  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28-01-16 04:58, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> On 25 January 2016 at 13:30, Simon Glass  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> At present u-boot.bin holds the plain U-Boot binary without the device
>>> tree.
>>> This is somewhat annoying since you need either u-boot.bin or
>>> u-boot-dtb.bin
>>> depending on whether device tree is used.
>>>
>>> This series adjusts the build such that u-boot.bin includes a device
>>> tree,
>>> and the plain binary is in u-boot-nodtb.bin. For now u-boot-dtb.bin
>>> remains
>>> the same.
>>>
>>> This should be acceptable since:
>>>
>>> - without OF_CONTROL, u-boot.bin still does not include a device tree
>>> - with OF_CONTROL, u-boot-dtb.bin does not change
>>>
>>> The main impact is build systems which are set up to use u-boot.bin as
>>> the output file and then add a device tree. These will have to change to
>>> use
>>> u-boot-nodtb.bin instead.
>>>
>>> The original decision to use a separate u-boot-dtb.bin was aimed at
>>> allowing
>>> any device tree file to be concatenated to the u-boot.bin image after the
>>> build. However this no-longer seems so important. More important is the
>>> convenience of using the same output file regardless of the setting for
>>> OF_CONTROL.
>>
>>
>> Do you have any comments on this series please?
>
>
> I'm fine with this series, all normal sunxi use-cases use
> u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin
> which is generated like this:
>
> ifneq ($(CONFIG_SUNXI),)
> OBJCOPYFLAGS_u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin = -I binary -O binary \
>--pad-to=$(CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO)
> --gap-fill=0xff
> u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin: spl/sunxi-spl.bin \
> u-boot$(if $(CONFIG_OF_CONTROL),-dtb,).img FORCE
> $(call if_changed,pad_cat)
> endif
>
> Which should stay working just fine, although it might be slightly
> simplified after your patch to simply always use u-boot.img.
>
> sunxi spl does not use a dtb, so nothing should change there.

OK thanks. I'll respin the series with the comments address and send v2.

Regards,
Simon
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] fdt: Replace u-boot-dtb.bin with u-boot.bin

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 28-01-16 04:58, Simon Glass wrote:

Hi Hans,

On 25 January 2016 at 13:30, Simon Glass  wrote:


At present u-boot.bin holds the plain U-Boot binary without the device tree.
This is somewhat annoying since you need either u-boot.bin or u-boot-dtb.bin
depending on whether device tree is used.

This series adjusts the build such that u-boot.bin includes a device tree,
and the plain binary is in u-boot-nodtb.bin. For now u-boot-dtb.bin remains
the same.

This should be acceptable since:

- without OF_CONTROL, u-boot.bin still does not include a device tree
- with OF_CONTROL, u-boot-dtb.bin does not change

The main impact is build systems which are set up to use u-boot.bin as
the output file and then add a device tree. These will have to change to use
u-boot-nodtb.bin instead.

The original decision to use a separate u-boot-dtb.bin was aimed at allowing
any device tree file to be concatenated to the u-boot.bin image after the
build. However this no-longer seems so important. More important is the
convenience of using the same output file regardless of the setting for
OF_CONTROL.


Do you have any comments on this series please?


I'm fine with this series, all normal sunxi use-cases use 
u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin
which is generated like this:

ifneq ($(CONFIG_SUNXI),)
OBJCOPYFLAGS_u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin = -I binary -O binary \
   --pad-to=$(CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO) --gap-fill=0xff
u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin: spl/sunxi-spl.bin \
u-boot$(if $(CONFIG_OF_CONTROL),-dtb,).img FORCE
$(call if_changed,pad_cat)
endif

Which should stay working just fine, although it might be slightly
simplified after your patch to simply always use u-boot.img.

sunxi spl does not use a dtb, so nothing should change there.

Regards,

Hans







Simon Glass (7):
   tegra: Drop generation of -nodtb file with OF_CONTROL
   fdt: Build a U-Boot binary without device tree
   fdt: Build an SPL binary without device tree
   tegra: Always build a boot image with the same filename
   socfpga: Simplify Makefile filenames
   Makefile: Make u-boot.img the same as u-boot-dtb.img
   Makefile: Drop unnecessary -dtb suffixes

  Makefile | 67 ++--
  scripts/Makefile.spl | 26 +---
  2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

--
2.7.0.rc3.207.g0ac5344



Regards,
Simon


___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] fdt: Replace u-boot-dtb.bin with u-boot.bin

[Simon Glass]

Hi Hans,

On 25 January 2016 at 13:30, Simon Glass  wrote:
>
> At present u-boot.bin holds the plain U-Boot binary without the device tree.
> This is somewhat annoying since you need either u-boot.bin or u-boot-dtb.bin
> depending on whether device tree is used.
>
> This series adjusts the build such that u-boot.bin includes a device tree,
> and the plain binary is in u-boot-nodtb.bin. For now u-boot-dtb.bin remains
> the same.
>
> This should be acceptable since:
>
> - without OF_CONTROL, u-boot.bin still does not include a device tree
> - with OF_CONTROL, u-boot-dtb.bin does not change
>
> The main impact is build systems which are set up to use u-boot.bin as
> the output file and then add a device tree. These will have to change to use
> u-boot-nodtb.bin instead.
>
> The original decision to use a separate u-boot-dtb.bin was aimed at allowing
> any device tree file to be concatenated to the u-boot.bin image after the
> build. However this no-longer seems so important. More important is the
> convenience of using the same output file regardless of the setting for
> OF_CONTROL.

Do you have any comments on this series please?

>
>
> Simon Glass (7):
>   tegra: Drop generation of -nodtb file with OF_CONTROL
>   fdt: Build a U-Boot binary without device tree
>   fdt: Build an SPL binary without device tree
>   tegra: Always build a boot image with the same filename
>   socfpga: Simplify Makefile filenames
>   Makefile: Make u-boot.img the same as u-boot-dtb.img
>   Makefile: Drop unnecessary -dtb suffixes
>
>  Makefile | 67 
> ++--
>  scripts/Makefile.spl | 26 +---
>  2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.7.0.rc3.207.g0ac5344
>

Regards,
Simon
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] fdt: Replace u-boot-dtb.bin with u-boot.bin

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Simon,

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Simon Glass  wrote:
> At present u-boot.bin holds the plain U-Boot binary without the device tree.
> This is somewhat annoying since you need either u-boot.bin or u-boot-dtb.bin
> depending on whether device tree is used.
>
> This series adjusts the build such that u-boot.bin includes a device tree,
> and the plain binary is in u-boot-nodtb.bin. For now u-boot-dtb.bin remains
> the same.
>
> This should be acceptable since:
>
> - without OF_CONTROL, u-boot.bin still does not include a device tree
> - with OF_CONTROL, u-boot-dtb.bin does not change
>
> The main impact is build systems which are set up to use u-boot.bin as
> the output file and then add a device tree. These will have to change to use
> u-boot-nodtb.bin instead.
>
> The original decision to use a separate u-boot-dtb.bin was aimed at allowing
> any device tree file to be concatenated to the u-boot.bin image after the
> build. However this no-longer seems so important. More important is the
> convenience of using the same output file regardless of the setting for
> OF_CONTROL.

This makes sense for user-friendness point of view and still allows
for build systems to interact over the raw copy of U-Boot to
concatenate it with the desired set of Device Tree files.

I think the more platforms move to Device Tree (from U-Boot point of
view) the more important this change is.

I do support this addition. Tom, please make sure to mention this on
the NEWS entry for the next release as integrations must to be aware
of this behavior change.

-- 
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] fdt: Replace u-boot-dtb.bin with u-boot.bin

[Simon Glass]

Hi Otavio,

On 25 January 2016 at 14:57, Otavio Salvador
 wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Simon Glass  wrote:
>> At present u-boot.bin holds the plain U-Boot binary without the device tree.
>> This is somewhat annoying since you need either u-boot.bin or u-boot-dtb.bin
>> depending on whether device tree is used.
>>
>> This series adjusts the build such that u-boot.bin includes a device tree,
>> and the plain binary is in u-boot-nodtb.bin. For now u-boot-dtb.bin remains
>> the same.
>>
>> This should be acceptable since:
>>
>> - without OF_CONTROL, u-boot.bin still does not include a device tree
>> - with OF_CONTROL, u-boot-dtb.bin does not change
>>
>> The main impact is build systems which are set up to use u-boot.bin as
>> the output file and then add a device tree. These will have to change to use
>> u-boot-nodtb.bin instead.
>>
>> The original decision to use a separate u-boot-dtb.bin was aimed at allowing
>> any device tree file to be concatenated to the u-boot.bin image after the
>> build. However this no-longer seems so important. More important is the
>> convenience of using the same output file regardless of the setting for
>> OF_CONTROL.
>
> This makes sense for user-friendness point of view and still allows
> for build systems to interact over the raw copy of U-Boot to
> concatenate it with the desired set of Device Tree files.
>
> I think the more platforms move to Device Tree (from U-Boot point of
> view) the more important this change is.

Yes that is my motivation. We have been adding more and more
special-case Makefile rules, and build/deploy instruction have had to
change, etc. This way we can make the DT conversion a bit more
seamless.

>
> I do support this addition. Tom, please make sure to mention this on
> the NEWS entry for the next release as integrations must to be aware
> of this behavior change.

Regards,
Simon
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot