[meta-ti] [RESEND: PATCH 2/3] keystone2: u-boot: update to add gph support

[Carlos Hernandez]

On 05/08/2013 11:11 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 06:40 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:07:10PM -0400, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>>> +	cd ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}
>>>>>> +	rm -f ${UBOOT_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_BINARY}
>>>>>> +	rm -f ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_SPL_BINARY}
>>>>>> +	rm -f ${UBOOT_SPI_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SPI_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_BINARY}
>>>>>> +	rm -f ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_BINARY} ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_SYMLINK}
>>>>>> +	ln -sf ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_IMAGE} ${UBOOT_SPI_GPH_BINARY}
>>>>>> +}
>>>>> As we just spoke - let's try to generalize this format and combine it with
>>>>> other similar requirements, like SPL-UART etc. There was a thread back in
>>>>> February about this...
>>> This is where I have disagreement. Let us restart the discussion. Who are
>>> the stake holders? Discuss it in this thread rather than using an old
>>> thread. I have copied here Carlos. I don't have bandwidth to spend too much
>>> time on this. Let us discuss it and identify what is required to be done.
>> Sure, let's discuss. I encourage everyone to participate, especially Carlos
>> and Tom.
> We should try and get the generic u-boot.inc to allow for a few
> different variables to be set by the machine.conf file, and if they are,
> copy/symlink them as needed.  I think we should try and fit the SPI
> selection into the generic u-boot-with-spl.bin framework that exists in
> u-boot today if we can, and then add some logic so that we can package
> and symlink that single file instead.
>
+1