On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:11:08AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jos? Miguel Gon?alves wrote: > > On 19-09-2012 17:10, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/19/2012 06:25:26 AM, Jos? Miguel Gon?alves wrote: > >>> Samsung's S3C24XX SoCs need this in order to generate a binary image > >>> with a padded SPL concatenated with U-Boot. > >> > >> I still think "pad" is a lousy name for this. It refers to a minor > >> implementation detail of how the image was put together. > >> > >> If you don't like the suggestions in > >> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-September/134191.html, how > >> about > >> "u-boot-with-spl.bin"? > > > > I used a suggestion made by Christian Riesch and accepted by Tom Rini.
Sorry for the churn, really, but.. > > I'm totally cool with any name that the U-Boot core maintainers would > > like to use, though I would prefer a shorter name than > > "u-boot-with-spl.bin" because I'm lazy and don't like to type too many > > keys when I upgrade by tftp :-) Because of that I think I would prefer > > "u-boot-all.bin". So, everybody agrees with that name? > > Hmmm. What does "all" mean? It's not that descriptive. > > On Tegra we currently have: > > u-boot-spl.bin - just SPL. > u-boot.bin - just main U-Boot, I think. > u-boot-dtb.bin - main U-Boot plus an appended DTB, I think. > u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin - SPL+U-Boot+DTB. As this, and other examples show, there's not really good generic names. Go with u-boot.s3c24xx as the target and output, please. This is consistent with the other targets and outputs where we throw something that identifies the SoC/etc into the target/name. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot