Kumar Gala wrote: > One of the things that wasn't clear to me is if we are ok with > maintaining state between 'bootm' subcommand inside u-boot or if we > really require passing all state via arguments and env. > > While I know it would be nice if the subcommands were stateless I dont > think this is practical. > > state we'd have to keep track of: > * arguments to the "top level" bootm command > * type of arguments (fit vs plain addresses) > * Image information, for FIT we get something like:
[snip of killer state information] > * entry point of OS image > * region tracking of memory regions used by previous subcommands (OS > image, bd_t, fdt, initrd, etc.) > > This seems like a lot of state to pass around in the env and via > arguments to commands. My vote is for stateful sub_commands. > > - k Useful info and analysis. I agree, it looks like we will need to be stateful. Best regards, gvb _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
