On 09/21/2012 12:43:48 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Tom,

In message <5fbf8e85ca34454794f0f7ecba79798f379f6fd...@hqmail04.nvidia.com> you wrote:
>
> If you flash u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin, you'll get a fully functioning
> U-Boot. There's an intermediate file (u-boot-dtb.bin) that I assume
> is u-boot.bin+dtb - I'm not sure why it's left around - Allen could
> comment here.

I _dislike_ the idea of having image names which include architecture
or even board parts.  I would really like to have generic names, that
can be used in a consistent way across platforms, architectures and
boards.

> So in my eyes, all you really need is u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin - an
> unwieldy name, to be sure, but it seems to satisfy your request for a > Soc identifier in the name. I voted for just having u-boot.bin be the

Please reconsider.  I definitely do NOT want to have SoC names or that
in any such images!


IIRC, the original idea was to provide image names (common for all
architectures, SoCs, boards) that only depend on where you install
U-Boot to.  in this way, we would have:

- u-boot.bin    for the generic case (say, for installation into NOR
                flash, no SPL or similar needed).
- u-boot-nand.bin
                for installation in NAND (with all needed headers,
                padding etc. included)
- u-boot-onenand.bin
                for installation in OneNAND
- u-boot.sd     for installation on a SDCard
                [actually we have an inconsistency in names here; this
                should have been "u-boot-sd.bin" or maybe even better
                "u-boot-sdcard.bin"]
etc.

It is very important to me that we do NOT include any architectures,
SoCs, or board specifc parts in the names because this will cause
major PITA for all kind of automatic test suites etc.

The awkwardness with naming based on nand/onenand/sd is that we no longer have build infrastructure that is specific to the type of boot device -- and IIRC with some of the newer SPL targets, the same image works on multiple types of boot device.

Having u-boot.bin be the final output regardless of internal implementation details such as spl would avoid that problem, and be even nicer to automated testing than the nand/onenand/sd names.

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

Reply via email to