| Message ID | 1501134939-11990-1-git-send-email-Ashish.Kumar@nxp.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
On 07/26/2017 10:56 PM, 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@nxp.com> > --- > > v2: > This is v2 version of https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.ozlabs.org%2Fpatch%2F755904%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cyork.sun%40nxp.com%7Cb6406c47c5fb4e535d7808d4d4b428dd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=EcNtJ93vefHWP3po4tX51lG7C6dam%2BTcWRNuoPllSDM%3D&reserved=0 > > Also depricate UBOOT_BINLOAD > > v3: > Reverse the logic to check for PowerPC and use .bin > format else use .img format I don't think this changes anything substantially. Checking the arch maybe not the right thing to do, as pointed by Scott earlier. Tom, What do you think about this? York
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 04:37:11PM +0000, York Sun wrote: > On 07/26/2017 10:56 PM, 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@nxp.com> > > --- > > > > v2: > > This is v2 version of https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.ozlabs.org%2Fpatch%2F755904%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cyork.sun%40nxp.com%7Cb6406c47c5fb4e535d7808d4d4b428dd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0&sdata=EcNtJ93vefHWP3po4tX51lG7C6dam%2BTcWRNuoPllSDM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Also depricate UBOOT_BINLOAD > > > > v3: > > Reverse the logic to check for PowerPC and use .bin > > format else use .img format > > I don't think this changes anything substantially. Checking the arch > maybe not the right thing to do, as pointed by Scott earlier. > > Tom, > > What do you think about this? Yeah, as I replied again to v2, no, I'm not in agreement with going down this path. I'd need a bit more convincing that there's a good reason to not change things.
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index a1a3aea..0666c72 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1033,8 +1033,20 @@ u-boot.dis: u-boot ifdef CONFIG_TPL SPL_PAYLOAD := tpl/u-boot-with-tpl.bin else +ifeq ($(ARCH),powerpc) +ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL +SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot-dtb.bin +else SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot.bin -endif +endif #ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL +else +ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL +SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot-dtb.img +else +SPL_PAYLOAD := u-boot.img +endif #ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL +endif #ifdef powerpc +endif #ifdef CONFIG_TPL OBJCOPYFLAGS_u-boot-with-spl.bin = -I binary -O binary \ --pad-to=$(CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO) @@ -1197,16 +1209,11 @@ MKIMAGEFLAGS_u-boot-spl.pbl = -n $(srctree)/$(CONFIG_SYS_FSL_PBL_RCW:"%"=%) \ spl/u-boot-spl.pbl: spl/u-boot-spl.bin FORCE $(call if_changed,mkimage) -ifeq ($(ARCH),arm) -UBOOT_BINLOAD := u-boot.img -else -UBOOT_BINLOAD := u-boot.bin -endif OBJCOPYFLAGS_u-boot-with-spl-pbl.bin = -I binary -O binary --pad-to=$(CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO) \ --gap-fill=0xff -u-boot-with-spl-pbl.bin: spl/u-boot-spl.pbl $(UBOOT_BINLOAD) FORCE +u-boot-with-spl-pbl.bin: spl/u-boot-spl.pbl $(SPL_PAYLOAD) FORCE $(call if_changed,pad_cat) # PPC4xx needs the SPL at the end of the image, since the reset vector
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@nxp.com> --- v2: This is v2 version of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/755904/ Also depricate UBOOT_BINLOAD v3: Reverse the logic to check for PowerPC and use .bin format else use .img format Makefile | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)