On 09/21/2012 01:43:24 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Scott Wood,
> 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.
On the other hand, I use u-boot.bin and expect it to always be the
raw linked
binary of u-boot .
What is U-Boot? Is it the thing that SPL loads, or is it the entire
package that pops out when I tell the U-Boot makefiles to build
something?
Of course the raw binary of the thing that SPL loads would still be
available under some new name. Or come up with a new name for the
final output, but I think the number of people that care about the
final output is larger than the number of people that care about the
raw binary of the thing that SPL loads.
As I said earlier, this is a situation where you can't please everyone,
and I think it's better to have the current state of things be sane
than to preserve one historical meaning of a particular target name
rather than the other (originally there was no SPL and u-boot.bin was
both the linker output and the final image to put into flash -- and
this is still the case for many/most boards).
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
