On 09/17/2012 12:53:41 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On 09/17/12 10:32, Scott Wood wrote:
On 09/17/2012 11:51:52 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On 09/17/12 09:27, Scott Wood wrote:
On 09/17/2012 04:24:34 AM, José Miguel Gonçalves wrote:
[snip]
If no one else has anything against, I will change the name of
the new
target to u-boot-pad.bin
What exactly is u-boot-pad.bin supposed to be? I hope that's
not being
proposed as the final output file the user sees.
With old nand_spl we had u-boot-nand.bin for the final
concatenated
binary, but that's not appropriate for a generic spl. I think
it would
be better for the user to see "u-boot.bin" as the actual image to
put on
the boot device, regardless of implementation details like spl,
if
there's no requirement of a specific file format. The second
stage
could become "u-boot-main.bin" or similar on builds where spl is
used.
We need some name that means "U-Boot SPL with U-Boot tacked on at
the
end". This can optionally be padded to a defined size to make
writing
to hardware easier. We also have the problem that "u-boot.bin"
already
means something so it needs to be clear.
u-boot.bin has traditionally (except for nand_spl and derivatives)
meant
the final image ready to put into flash, after any platform-specific layout issues are taken care of (e.g. on mpc83xx it will have a
reset
control word embedded, on mpc85xx it will be padded to 512K with a
reset
vector at the end, etc.). That we did the tweaking in the linker
script
rather than after linking seems like an inconsequential
implementation
detail.
Right, but it's also just objcopy (with OBJCFLAGS) -O binary of, and this is the biggie to me, just U-Boot.
I further fear that even if we made an "out" directory if we put u-boot.bin in there and it's not
the
same as the objcopy -O binary u-boot u-boot.bin as before we've
violated
the rule of least surprise and the end user problems from people
that
read "the" document (that happened to be out of date) will be our problem.
In this case I think you can't meet one user's expectations without violating another's. I think it's more important to make it clear
to
the user what file they're supposed to put into flash. Users of platforms that are currently supported by nand_spl would probably
like
to continue seeing u-boot-nand.bin -- it's a tradeoff of historical stability versus current consistency.
Right. So I'm saying we need to set new expectations for everyone and some human helper symlinks to help. A new top-level out or images or something, with symlinks inside.
How about something like "u-boot-final.bin"[1], "u-boot-all.bin", "u-boot-image.bin", etc. as the end-user output, with ".bin" changed to something else if it's a well known file type? At least for the boards that only require one output file.
-Scott
[1] Though then LDFLAGS_FINAL becomes confusing...