On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:10 PM Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 06. 12. 18 6:08, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:41 AM Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 03. 12. 18 8:50, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >>> This patch set fixes various issues in microblaze Makefiles. > >>> > >>> BTW, "simpleImage.<dt>" works like a phony target to generate the > >>> following four images, where the first three are just aliases. > >>> > >>> - arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.<dt>: > >>> identical to arch/microblaze/boot/linux.bin > >> > >> It is not - fdt section should be empty. > >> simpleImage has this section filled. > >> > >>> > >>> - arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.<dt>.unstrip: > >>> identical to vmlinux > >> > >> The same here with filled section. > > > > > > vmlinux is built anyway > > for whatever target you are building. > > > > What is the point of making a copy of vmlinux? > > They are the same. > > You can confirm it by 'diff' > > > > $ export CROSS_COMPILE=microblaze-linux- > > $ make ARCH=microblaze defconfig > > $ make -j8 ARCH=microblaze simpleImage.system > > $ diff arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.system.unstrip vmlinux > > I can't remember the reason for this. Maybe it was just a copy from > PowerPC which started to use this simpleImage format in past and MB just > copied it. > > >>> > >>> - arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.<dt>.ub: > >>> identical to arch/microblaze/boot/linux.bin.ub > >> > >> as above. > >> > >>> > >>> - arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.<dt>.strip: > >>> stripped vmlinux > >> > >> And this is there because unstrip version is quite huge and for early > >> issues you need to know only some symbols that's why debugger is not > >> overflow with stuff which none needs. > >> Maybe this is not an issue now but that strip version is used a lot. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I am not sure how much useful those copies are, > >>> but, I tried my best to keep the same behavior. > >>> > >>> IMHO, I guess DTB=<dt> would be more sensible, > >>> but it is up to Michal. > >> > >> What do you mean by this exactly? > > > > > > As I showed above, > > arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.system.unstrip > > is exactly the same as vmlinux. > > > > arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.<dt> > > is objcopy'ed binary of vmlinux. > > > > arch/microblaze/boot/simpleImage.<dt>.ub > > is objcopy'ed binary of vmlinux, with u-boot header prepended. > > > > You have already build-rules for them. > > > > > > > > It is true that the stripped image only exist in simpleImage, > > but I think "arch/microblaze/boot/vmlinux.strip" > > is a more sensible name. > > > > > > > > What I want to point out is: > > "Which file should be compiled in", > > is a part of the configuration. > > We generally do not change the final > > target name just for the difference of > > configuration. > > For example, ARM just uses "vmlinux", "Image", "zImage", etc. > > Never duplicate target-specific copies depending on configuration. > > > > > > Why does microblaze create copies for each DT > > instead of using generic image like linux.bin, linux.bin.ub, etc. ? > > > > If using generic image names is acceptable, > > "make simpleImage.<dt>" is just a shorthand of > > "make DTB=<dt> vmlinux linux.bin linux.bin.ub vmlinux.strip" > > > > > > Only the benefit of this approach is, > > you can keep all images for multiple boards at the same time. > > > > $ make ARCH=microblaze simpleImage.board1 > > $ make ARCH=microblaze simpleImage.board2 > > $ make ARCH=microblaze simpleImage.board3 > > yes that's one thing which came to my mind too. > > > > > > > > > > > Since I do not know how many users rely on this usage, > > I said "it is up to you". > > One thing is what it is sensible and the second thing is historical > connection to that names. Because Xilinx was having ppc405 and ppc440 > and microblaze as big endian architecture at that time was taking a lot > of stuff from powerpc that's why we took also that targets just to be > the same in distributions. > PPC was using simpleImage format in the same way that's why we have > adopted that too. > > Personally for me it is not a problem to remove that simpleImage format > but I have no idea how many people rely on that. > > I can't see any problem not to generate/copy simpleImage.<dt>.unstrip > version but I would keep the rest same as before just to make sure that > we are not breaking anybody. OK, let's keep all simpleImage images. BTW, I noticed this series changed the behavior a bit. "make simpleImage.<dt>" will overwrite linux.bin.ub where linux.bin.ub should not contain built-in DT. I will fix it just in case. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
