[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 10/11] Add u-boot-pad.bin target to the Makefile

[Scott Wood]

On 09/19/2012 01:19:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:11:08AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jos? Miguel Gon?alves wrote:
> > > On 19-09-2012 17:10, Scott Wood wrote:
> > >> On 09/19/2012 06:25:26 AM, Jos? Miguel Gon?alves wrote:
> > >>> Samsung's S3C24XX SoCs need this in order to generate a binary  
> image
> > >>> with a padded SPL concatenated with U-Boot.
> > >>
> > >> I still think "pad" is a lousy name for this.  It refers to a  
> minor
> > >> implementation detail of how the image was put together.
> > >>
> > >> If you don't like the suggestions in
> > >>  
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-September/134191.html, how
> > >> about
> > >> "u-boot-with-spl.bin"?
> > >
> > > I used a suggestion made by Christian Riesch and accepted by Tom  
> Rini.
> 
> Sorry for the churn, really, but..
> 
> > > I'm totally cool with any name that the U-Boot core maintainers  
> would
> > > like to use, though I would prefer a shorter name than
> > > "u-boot-with-spl.bin" because I'm lazy and don't like to type too  
> many
> > > keys when I upgrade by tftp :-) Because of that I think I would  
> prefer
> > > "u-boot-all.bin". So, everybody agrees with that name?
> >
> > Hmmm. What does "all" mean? It's not that descriptive.
> >
> > On Tegra we currently have:
> >
> > u-boot-spl.bin - just SPL.
> > u-boot.bin - just main U-Boot, I think.
> > u-boot-dtb.bin - main U-Boot plus an appended DTB, I think.
> > u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin - SPL+U-Boot+DTB.
> 
> As this, and other examples show, there's not really good generic  
> names.
> Go with u-boot.s3c24xx as the target and output, please.  This is
> consistent with the other targets and outputs where we throw something
> that identifies the SoC/etc into the target/name.

So we're just going to duplicate this rule with a different name for  
every target that just needs a simple concatenation?  Like the bad old  
days of having a rule for every target in the makefile?  Come on.

Plus, I don't like using a semi-generic name in the output file because  
it then looks to the user as if this is a U-Boot that covers that  
entire family of devices, rather than just the target it was built  
for.  At least with fully generic names like "u-boot.bin" it should be  
obvious to most people that it doesn't cover every single target.  If  
we must have a non-generic output name, base it on the actual target  
name using a pattern rule -- but I do not see what's wrong with a  
generic name.  Not necessarily something that works for every target --  
that's a strawman -- just something that describes the output of this  
rule in a way that isn't overly specific.

-Scott