[U-Boot] arm: mxs: Fix mkimage invocation

Remove this ad-hoc mkimage invocation in MXS Makefile and replace
it with the standard mkimage rule instead.

This patch fixes recent build issues introduced by the patch
92a655c mkimage: Set up a file size parameter and keep it updated
These build issues could be triggered by building for example the
MX28EVK and the u-boot.sb image:

$ make mx28evk_defconfig
$ make V=1 u-boot.sb
[...]
make -f ./scripts/Makefile.build obj=arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs u-boot.sb
  ./tools/mkimage -n arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxsimage.mx28.cfg -T mxsimage u-boot.sb
./tools/mkimage: Can't open (null): Bad address
arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile:82: recipe for target 'u-boot.sb' failed
make[1]: *** [u-boot.sb] Error 1
Makefile:989: recipe for target 'u-boot.sb' failed
make: *** [u-boot.sb] Error 2

With this patch:
  ./tools/mkimage -n arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxsimage.mx28.cfg -T mxsimage -d arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxsimage.mx28.cfg u-boot.sb

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc: Juha Lumme <juha.lumme@gmail.com>
---
 arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Hi Marek,

On 10 August 2015 at 19:08, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> Remove this ad-hoc mkimage invocation in MXS Makefile and replace
> it with the standard mkimage rule instead.
>
> This patch fixes recent build issues introduced by the patch
> 92a655c mkimage: Set up a file size parameter and keep it updated
> These build issues could be triggered by building for example the
> MX28EVK and the u-boot.sb image:
>
> $ make mx28evk_defconfig
> $ make V=1 u-boot.sb
> [...]
> make -f ./scripts/Makefile.build obj=arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs u-boot.sb
>   ./tools/mkimage -n arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxsimage.mx28.cfg -T mxsimage u-boot.sb
> ./tools/mkimage: Can't open (null): Bad address
> arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile:82: recipe for target 'u-boot.sb' failed
> make[1]: *** [u-boot.sb] Error 1
> Makefile:989: recipe for target 'u-boot.sb' failed
> make: *** [u-boot.sb] Error 2
>
> With this patch:
>   ./tools/mkimage -n arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxsimage.mx28.cfg -T mxsimage -d arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/mxsimage.mx28.cfg u-boot.sb
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Cc: Juha Lumme <juha.lumme@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile
> index 6c59494..71c2c0e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/Makefile
> @@ -74,12 +74,10 @@ u-boot.csf: u-boot.ivt u-boot.bin board/$(VENDOR)/$(BOARD)/sign/u-boot.csf
>  %.sig: %.csf
>         $(call if_changed,mkcst_mxs)
>
> -quiet_cmd_mkimage_mxs = MKIMAGE $@
> -cmd_mkimage_mxs = $(objtree)/tools/mkimage -n $< -T mxsimage $@ \
> -       $(if $(KBUILD_VERBOSE:1=), >/dev/null)
> -
> +MKIMAGEFLAGS_u-boot.sb = -n $< -T mxsimage
>  u-boot.sb: $(src)/$(MKIMAGE_TARGET-y) u-boot.bin spl/u-boot-spl.bin FORCE
> -       $(call if_changed,mkimage_mxs)
> +       $(call if_changed,mkimage)
>
> +MKIMAGEFLAGS_u-boot-signed.sb = -n $< -T mxsimage
>  u-boot-signed.sb: $(src)/mxsimage-signed.cfg u-boot.ivt u-boot.sig spl/u-boot-spl.ivt spl/u-boot-spl.sig FORCE
> -       $(call if_changed,mkimage_mxs)
> +       $(call if_changed,mkimage)
> --
> 2.1.4
>

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

Sorry for the breakage. I had an weird issue with my original patch on
the boards you mention and started chasing it down. But then I forgot
about it and for some reason did not see failures with buildman. It's
good that you figured it out.

Let me know if you want me to pick this up.

Regards,
Simon

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 04:47:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Marek,

Hi Simon,

> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> 
> Sorry for the breakage. I had an weird issue with my original patch on
> the boards you mention and started chasing it down. But then I forgot
> about it and for some reason did not see failures with buildman. It's
> good that you figured it out.
> 
> Let me know if you want me to pick this up.

No problem, glad it helped. Feel free to pick it up, but maybe wait for
Stefano's ACK first as he's the i.MX maintainer?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Hi Marek,

On 10 August 2015 at 20:56, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 04:47:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>
>> Sorry for the breakage. I had an weird issue with my original patch on
>> the boards you mention and started chasing it down. But then I forgot
>> about it and for some reason did not see failures with buildman. It's
>> good that you figured it out.
>>
>> Let me know if you want me to pick this up.
>
> No problem, glad it helped. Feel free to pick it up, but maybe wait for
> Stefano's ACK first as he's the i.MX maintainer?

Ah OK, probably best for Stefano to do this.

Regards,
Simon

On 11/08/2015 05:01, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On 10 August 2015 at 20:56, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 04:47:33 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the breakage. I had an weird issue with my original patch on
>>> the boards you mention and started chasing it down. But then I forgot
>>> about it and for some reason did not see failures with buildman. It's
>>> good that you figured it out.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you want me to pick this up.
>>
>> No problem, glad it helped. Feel free to pick it up, but maybe wait for
>> Stefano's ACK first as he's the i.MX maintainer?
> 
> Ah OK, probably best for Stefano to do this.
> 

Got it, thanks to fix it, I put it in my apply-queue.

Regards,
Stefano