On Tuesday 28 June 2011 02:52 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Scott Wood,
In message20110627161803.16783c48@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net you wrote:
But if we do not create a new hierarchy of target directories we will have the "normal" and the "spl" objects in parallel (and I don't want to delete one when building the other).
What's wrong with creating a new hierarchy of target directories? It would be like specifying a different output directory.
The question came up what we need it for.
Just seems cleaner to me than jamming it into the file extension. If we're treating it as a separate build, it should go into a separate place. It's not really a different type of file.
I'm fine with that as well.
I too think this approach is cleaner. This is essentially Daniel's approach. So, we can use some of his code. There are couple of open points though:
1. If there are SPL customized generic files like the nand_spl/nand_boot.c where do we keep them? I suggest that we keep them in spl/nand, spl/onenand etc. And for the object file hierarchy let's have something like spl/obj. How about that?
3. I hope partially linked libraries is fine. Or do you want to link all object files in a single stage? Is there any advantage in doing that?
Shall I re-work my series using this framework?
best regards, Aneesh