[U-Boot] [Patch v2] Makefile: Concatenation of u-boot-spl.bin and u-boot.img

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:27:17PM +0530, Ashish Kumar wrote:

> Concatenation of u-boot-spl.bin and u-boot.img for NXP layerscape
> platform SoC: LS1088A/LS2080A and their variants
> 
> This patch also depricates UBOOT_BINLOAD in favour of SPL_PAYLOAD
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kumar <Ashish.Kumar at nxp.com>
> ---
> 
> v2:
> This is v2 version of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/755904/
> 
> Also considers recommendation made in following mail chain
> http://linux.freescale.net/pipermail/u-boot/2016-September/041592.html
> to depricate UBOOT_BINLOAD
> 
>  Makefile | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 4c4c8d8..ff22bda 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1030,8 +1030,20 @@ u-boot.dis:	u-boot
>  ifdef CONFIG_TPL
>  SPL_PAYLOAD := tpl/u-boot-with-tpl.bin
>  else
> +ifeq ($(ARCH),arm)
> +ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
> +SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot-dtb.img
> +else
> +SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot.img
> +endif	#ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
> +else
> +ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
> +SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot-dtb.bin
> +else
>  SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot.bin

... so you're trying to make the logic such that on ARM we use .img and
otherwise we use .bin ?  Why are we not using .img everywhere?  And I
assume your else case is PowerPC, but I'm pretty sure other
architectures are currently using .img as well.  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20170726/3d22cd57/attachment.sig>