Dear Scott Wood, > 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).
Leave u-boot.bin be, that's the u-boot binary ... the new name might be u- boot.img (as in flash image), what do you say ? > -Scott Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
