On 09/24/2012 02:03:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:54:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 07:12:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> >> Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the
> >final target
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:54:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 07:12:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> >> Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the
> >final target
> >> on the make command line. This is a dep
On 09/21/2012 07:12:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the final
target
> on the make command line. This is a departure from traditional
U-Boot practice
> and results in a lack of bui
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the final target
> on the make command line. This is a departure from traditional U-Boot
> practice
> and results in a lack of build coverage in MAKEALL.
>
> Now boards can spe
Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the final target
on the make command line. This is a departure from traditional U-Boot practice
and results in a lack of build coverage in MAKEALL.
Now boards can specify CONFIG_SPL_TARGET to determine what gets built by
default.
Eventuall
5 matches
Mail list logo