[U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de 
> [mailto:u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: Mike Frysinger
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Ronen Shitrit
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> in message <200904060503.18864.vapier at gentoo.org> you wrote:
> >
> > the Blackfin processor too has a custom format (LDR) for 
> booting code.  
> > it's akin to the PHDRs in ELF, plus some additional flag 
> bits to control behavior.
> > but in our world, i wrote external utilities to manage ELF->LDR 
> > conversion and so i didnt need a dedicated script in u-boot 
> to do that 
> > ugly conversion mojo, just a new Makefile target (u-boot.ldr).
> 
> ...which seems to be an acceptable (to both sides) compromise to me.
I understood from the discussion so far that-
1. There are several cases where u-boot.bin does not help alone
2. in some cases there are external tools to be used for the conversion
   but ideally it is not possible to include each tool in a project

Let's consider specific case - 
a board having serial console, flash, dram, a processor and supported u-boot.

As a user ideally I expect u-boot.bin generated by u-boot make
should go onto flash and board should work.
But if this doesn't work then how should we educate the uses and address their
questions whereas he might have stumped flashing wrong u-boot.bin to his board...?

This is case with Kirkwood.
I don't think it is ONLY processor having this boot sequence architecture,
there may be several in pipeline...who knows.
Kirkwood is today's need to be addressed.

In my opinion objective of any boot loader is to provide flashable binary.

Bin_dep.sh provides a framework inside u-boot,
whether to use it or not is sole decision of board/processor specific code.
So why not include it :-)

Regards..
Prafulla . .