On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:22:28PM -0400, Brian Waite wrote: > > What I want is three things: > > 1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will > > never run into a 'cannot execute' problem. My suggestion is to have > > the Makefile do a: > > @chmod +x mkimage.sh > > Or so. In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you, > > automagically, on .sh files I believe. For 2.4, you must handle this > > explicitly. > > Altough messy, I make this happen in the patch I supply. I can change > it to do the straight chmod in the scrip[ts directory if that is > cleaner.
I think what your patch does is the 2.6 logic, so that's probably best. > > 2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have > > 'uImage' ? > > I think uImage is enough. Wolfgang strongly discourages any use of > PPCBoot these days and it just seems silly. That what I figured at this point. > > 3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same > > time. > > This was one of the reasons for not supplying the patch previously. I > will try to pull together a 2.5/2.6 patch but I have not worked under > 2.5/2.6 at all. When I initially did the 2.4 patch I pulled the 2.5 > tree but I didn't have time to understand the layout. Also, unless > someone has a board that will boot a uImage target I can only supply > an untested patch. I'll take some time and see if I can pull something > I am comfortable with in the next few days. Is there anyone who could > help with testing? 'Untested' is fine here, since all you have to do to test is have the 'uImage' target work. A minimal config based on arch/ppc/defconfig should suffice for this. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
