On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Kumar Gala, > > In message <B10531D5-A045-4A60- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> >> I'm adding a "boots" command that implements sub commands. Once I > > I saw it. Actually I don't like it. Why didn't you stick with the > original plan to implement subcommands as part of bootm ?
Can you be more precise about what you dont like. Just the new command, how its implemented, or something else? Also, what plan did we agree on? I choose a new command because of my concern about how to distinguish the sub-command from a FIT identifier. But it looks like that might not be an issue. Its easy enough to fold the boots subcommands into bootm. Is there something else that needs to be done? - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
