Hi Jagan,
On 2019/10/22 下午6:10, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:43 PM Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:56:39 +0530
Hi Kever,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Kever Yang <kever.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jagan,
On 2019/10/18 上午3:07, Jagan Teki wrote:
idbloader.img name is specific to rockchip,
This is specific for rockchip, like rksd, rkspi type in mkimage, since
it's clear for what it stands for,
I think it can also used in U-Boot.
where it usually
created using rockchip tools.
No, idbloader stands for the image with idb header packaged with two
stage loader, eg. TPL+SPL
or ddr.bin+miniloader.bin, and maybe ddr.bin + SPL， TPL+miniloader.bin,
not related to rockchip tools, it can also be created with U-Boot
mkimage tool.
I understand what idbloader contains, it is like rockchip SPL. but the
main concern here is the naming convention used in U-Boot. It would be
a standard way of using naming conventions where the final output
naming conventions should have u-boot support stages(TPL, SPL, U-Boot)
and platform specific name. This way it is less confused what exactly
it contains.
Moreover most of the platform specific bin ended up using this type of
conventions.
- u-boot-spl-mtk.bin - Mediatek SPL bin
- u-boot-mtk.bin - Mediatek U-Boot bin (would be final image)
- u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin - Allwinner U-Boot with SPL
- u-boot-x86-start16-tpl.bin
No real consistency there though...
Not sure what you pointed here, each bin listed above shows the
platform and u-boot stage and prefix with u-boot- as well. of course
all can't maintain the same but has mentioned details.
The image for Vendor's BootRom is always vendor specific, so I don't
think invent
a new name for idbloader.img make any sense.
I know what's the u-boot.bin, u-boot.itb, u-boot-spl.bin,
u-boot-tpl.bin, because all the
boards use them in the same way, but I don't know what is
u-boot-spl-mtk.bin or u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin,
and also names like lpc32xx-***, because they always specific for the
SoC vendor, people never know
what it's before they work on this platform.
For idbloader.img, it already used for a period of time, it's document
in both Rockchip document
and U-Boot document, developers know what it's when they see this name,
I don't think add a new
name for it and add a new document and discards the document with old
name is a good idea,
it only confuse developers. You can have a new name for binman output
for that's new output,
but I would like not to invent new name for idbloader until most of
developers think that's really
necessary.
Thanks,
- Kever
Similar naming conventions used for tegra, x86 etc.
I'm completely aware of what you're trying to abbreviate
idbloader.img, but having u-boot-spl-rockchip.bin is more readable and
understand than idbloader.
As was discussed before, idbloader.img is the name used in external
documentation.
Yes, used in external documentation. when it comes to upstream it
would follow as per existing platforms does atleast.
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
