[Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/u-boot
Ulf Samuelsson
ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com
Tue Jan 6 12:50:36 UTC 2009
mån 2009-01-05 klockan 21:12 +0100 skrev Peter Korsgaard:
> >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ulf> The "complex" file name is needed, unless you only
> Ulf> work with a single board.
>
> I don't get it - Isn't that why we have binaries/<project>?
YOu copy things to binaries/PROJECT to have a single directory
which you can compress, but if you copy the stuff to
the tftp directory then you have a mess.
You have to manually rename this.
>
> Even so,
> isn't that the same problem with the other files? (file system images,
> kernels)?
The kernel is already doing this in the "advanced" makefile.
The rootfs should be doing it. and in this case PROJECT Is definitely
the right one to use.
> Ulf> We obviously need to find a way that does not break the build of
> Ulf> course.
>
> Ulf> Many targets define BR2_BOARD_NAME in their Config.in's
> Ulf> and it may make sense to have a common BR2_BOARD_NAME
> Ulf> Then it will be always be defined.
> Ulf> Default to "uclibc" is probably OK.
>
> Isn't that what we have BR2_PROJECT for?
>
Yes and no,
You can use BR2_PROJECT, but if you:
make XXXX_config
when building u-boot-<VERSION>, it also makes sense to name the binary
<XXXX>-u-boot-<VERSION>-<DATE>.bin
because regardless of which project you are building,
the binary should end up the same.
<DATE> is there to give you some kind of revision information
so you do not overwrite older working results.
It is not perfect, but I think it is good enough.
If you are building several projects where the U-Boot differs
I.E: if a header file is first copied to "include/configs"
then it would make sense to call it:
<PROJECT>-u-boot-<VERSION>-<DATE>.bin
The difference is minor, so I guess we go with PROJECT for now.
BR
Ulf Samuelsson
More information about the buildroot
mailing list