Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 08:37:47AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Finally I'd like to change the subcommands to be prefixed with '_' to
>> make parsing easier:
>>bootm _start
>>bootm _prep
>>bootm _load_os
>>...
>
> Ick. How about using a different name than "b
Dear Jerry Van Baren,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Wolfgang advocated supporting the old parser. Personally, I'm OK with
> requiring hush in order to enable the New Improved bootm behavior and
> leaving users of the old parser with the old bootm (a, more
> #ifdefs). I'm n
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 08:37:47AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Finally I'd like to change the subcommands to be prefixed with '_' to
> make parsing easier:
>bootm _start
>bootm _prep
>bootm _load_os
>...
Ick. How about using a different name than "bootm"?
-Scott
___
Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> bootm usb_stop
>>
>> This is "usb stop"
>
> So this case is easy since its a compile time choice.
>
>>> bootm disable_caches
>>
>> This is "icache off && dcache off"
>
> I assume you are suggesting new toplevel cache commands.
No, existing: cmd_cache.c
>>> "load_os" s
>> bootm usb_stop
>
> This is "usb stop"
So this case is easy since its a compile time choice.
>> bootm disable_caches
>
> This is "icache off && dcache off"
I assume you are suggesting new toplevel cache commands.
>> "load_os" stays as is.
>
> Decompresses to a destination address? I didn
Kumar Gala wrote:
> So I proposed a set of subcommands that looked like:
>
>bootm start
>bootm prep
>bootm load_os
>bootm load_fdt
>bootm load_initrd
>bootm jump
>bootm restore
>
> is this the right granularity or should we go finer?
>
> "prep" could be:
>
>boot
So I proposed a set of subcommands that looked like:
bootm start
bootm prep
bootm load_os
bootm load_fdt
bootm load_initrd
bootm jump
bootm restore
is this the right granularity or should we go finer?
"prep" could be:
bootm disable_interrupts
bootm usb_stop
bootm
7 matches
Mail list logo
