Dear Ulf Samuelsson,
In message 4A86814F.1070805@atmel.com you wrote:
The important thing is however that the solution is
Important for what?
To avoid that external build systems break if anything changes in u-boot.
I don;t see any risk of such breakage, because U-Boot does not exactly have a tradition to change these things avery few weeks.
Could you please explain which part of this has been an unstable interface? As far as I can tell PPCBoot / ARMBoot / U-Boot have always created the "final binary image" as you called it in the top level directory, and also it's name has never changed. So what exactly is unstable here?
You mentioned yourself that Marvell want to have something different than u-boot.bin
New features get added, indeed. But this does not count here - we were discussing stability of existing interfaces, and these haven't changed.
I don't. The U-Boot project is driven by a community. If a clear majority of voices requests something I would have hard times to make my way.
I am not talking about decisions, I am talking about you not running into problems, if anything changes, because you know it by heart.
Well, if there would be changes to any "install" interface you had to know about these as well.
Fact is that I am using some scripts that are 10 years old now, and there has never been need to change them because of changes in the PPCBoot/ARMBoot/U-Boot "interface" - not even when ARMBoot was forked from PPCBoot, nor when PPCBoot and ARMBoot were merged back into U-Boot.
...
You say that you did not write any new buildscripts which did not copy anything except u-boot.bin?
No, I didn't day that. Don't twist my words. I wrote that I did not have to change existing scripts because existing interfaces never changed.
And that was what you complained about: the rist that existing interfaces might change below your feet.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk