On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Grant Likely, > > In message <fa686aa40912301502x48785614ya4dd5c71815a7633@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote: >> >> IIRC, uImage.fit.initrd.% should appear before uImage.fit.% in the >> Makefile so that make behaves more consistently. Speaking of which, >> the number of '.' in the name is getting rather large. Would you >> consider using 'fitImage' instead of 'uImage.fit'? > > Why chose a different name at all? We could still call it "uImage", > meaning "U-Boot image" - U-Boot is clever enought o detect > automatically if we pass it an old style or a fit image. Simply because arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile needs different target names to decide which kind of image to build. I don't care much about the name, it can always be renamed at install time, but I do care that the make build targets are sane. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
