On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 01:36:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/19/2012 01:19:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >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. > > So we're just going to duplicate this rule with a different name for > every target that just needs a simple concatenation? Like the bad > old days of having a rule for every target in the makefile? Come > on. > > Plus, I don't like using a semi-generic name in the output file > because it then looks to the user as if this is a U-Boot that covers > that entire family of devices, rather than just the target it was > built for. At least with fully generic names like "u-boot.bin" it > should be obvious to most people that it doesn't cover every single > target. If we must have a non-generic output name, base it on the > actual target name using a pattern rule -- but I do not see what's > wrong with a generic name. Not necessarily something that works for > every target -- that's a strawman -- just something that describes > the output of this rule in a way that isn't overly specific.
I suck at naming. I admit it. And I've written, read, rewritten a reply a few times now. So, lets go with this. u-boot.bin is the "I just need u-boot, in binary form, to boot". Lets try u-boot-with-spl.bin as "I just need spl, some padding and u-boot, as bins, to boot". -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot