Dear Wolfgang, On Wednesday 15 June 2011 05:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Aneesh, > > In message<4df88f45.9090...@ti.com> you wrote: >> >>> I don't get this. Why don't we just pass the required make target >>> from the top level Makefile? If we want to build "onenand-ipl-2k.bin" >>> then this would result in running "make onenand-ipl-2k.bin" in the >>> respective directory - this is then also independent of whether this >>> image contains support for one specific boot device or for any set of >>> different devices. >> >> Then you will have to deal with many such images in the top-level >> Makefile(u-boot/Makefile). Instead why not have just one rule like the >> below in the top-level Makefile for all the different spl's: >> >> >> SPL :$(TIMESTAMP_FILE) $(VERSION_FILE) depend tools >> $(MAKE) -C spl/board/$(BOARDDIR) all >> >> And leave the rest to the board level Makefiles > > We just discussed that there are cases where there may be no board > level Makefile be needed at all, because there is no board specific > code to handle. > > Also, why would there be many such images? We might just want to use > more reasonable names. We have "u-boot.bin", and this works fine for > all boards, so why cannot we make it that "u-boot-nand.bin" works for > all boards booting from NAND, and in general "u-boot-<DEV>.bin" works > for all boards booting from a<DEV> boot device? > > Instead of "onenand-ipl-2k.bin", we would just have a generic > "u-boot-onenand.bin" > >> Of course, this is assuming the existing Makefile structure. With the >> new Makefile structure you are suggesting this may not hold good. > > Why not?
I was saying that my suggestion of delegating everything to board level Makefile will not work with the new top-down approach you are suggesting in the other mail-chain. best regards, Aneesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
