On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 01:23:55PM +0100, Christoph Fritz wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 13:07 +0100, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:25:11PM +0100, Enrico Joerns wrote:
> > > > On 11/16/19 1:44 PM, Christoph Fritz wrote:
> > > > > This patch is adopting current barebox default naming scheme.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Fritz <chf.fr...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh | 4 ++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > > b/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > > index 3120f57..9286a63 100644
> > > > > --- a/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > > +++ b/scripts/barebox-mark-successful-boot.sh
> > > > > @@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
> > > > > DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS=3
> > > > > DEFAULT_PRIORITY=20
> > > > > -system=$(sed /proc/cmdline -ne "s/\(^\|.* \)bootstate.active=\([^
> > > > > ]*\).*/\2/p")
> > > > > +system=$(sed /proc/cmdline -ne "s/\(^\|.* \)bootchooser.active=\([^
> > > > > ]*\).*/\2/p")
> > > > > if [ -z "${system}" ]; then
> > > > > echo "unable to detect system partition" >&2
> > > > > exit 1
> > > > > fi
> > > > > -barebox-state -n /state \
> > > > > +barebox-state -n state \
> > > > > -s
> > > > > "bootstate.${system}.remaining_attempts=${DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS}"
> > > > > \
> > > > > -s "bootstate.${system}.priority=${DEFAULT_PRIORITY}"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patch, I didn't even remember that we have a script for
> > > > this ;)
> > > >
> > > > For me, the changes look reasonable. Any concerns? Roland?
> > >
> > > Hmm. My barebox 2019.06.0 here still passes the parameter as
> > > "bootstate.active=system0", and I cannot find any commit in barebox
> > > since then that changes this. Can you point me to a commit?
> >
> > Sorry, that was a barebox version which was heavily patched for
> > backwards compatibility with old kernels and userlands :-/
> >
> > > In any case, we should be compatible to old barebox versions, so both
> > > versions of the parameter name should be accepted.
> >
> > However this is still the best option I think.
>
> So in the script you want to check the return value of barebox-state and
> call it with the old parameters to be backward compatible?
Sorry, this one got lost during christmas holidays… Yes, right, that's
what I was thinking of:
-barebox-state -n /state \
- -s "bootstate.${system}.remaining_attempts=${DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS}"
\
- -s "bootstate.${system}.priority=${DEFAULT_PRIORITY}"
+ if ! barebox-state -n state \
+ -s
"bootchooser.${system}.remaining_attempts=${DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS}" \
+ -s "bootchooser.${system}.priority=${DEFAULT_PRIORITY}"
+ then
+ barebox-state -n state \
+ -s
"bootstate.${system}.remaining_attempts=${DEFAULT_REMAINING_ATTEMPTS}" \
+ -s "bootstate.${system}.priority=${DEFAULT_PRIORITY}"
+ fi
(Also I cannot remember right now whether '-s /state' or '-s state'
makes a difference...)
- Roland
--
Roland Hieber, Pengutronix e.K. | r.hie...@pengutronix.de |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
OSS-Tools mailing list
OSS-Tools@pengutronix.de
