On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 01:58:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon, > > In message > <CAPnjgZ106dBqzJdVYpufp4mztf3_eFoX9isSm=w_c5udofj...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: > > > > > I really think your fixed filename proposal does not work well in > > > reality. The file name should be Kconfig configurable. See [1] > > > for details. > > > > > > [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-October/462668.html > > > > Yes I saw that but I forgot to look at it. I think it makes sense - we > > do that with devicetree, for example. > > > > Is that the only thing holding you back? > > Basically yes - the only other concerns I have is about this += > construct which makes the '+' character an illegal character for > environment variable names, but only when used at the end of the > variable. This is anything but nice or consistent. Iwonder what > happens with notations like these: > > foo+=bar -> "bar" gets appended to current value of "foo" > But what for: > foo\+=bar > or > foo+ = bar > > ? > > And please see also my comments about changing the autostart > functionality for the user.
Perhaps we should just make "+" an illegal character in the variable name, for consistency? > > I haven't seen any positive comments to this series yet... > > Maybe many long-term users of U-Boot don't see the current situation > as such a big problem? I have no idea. Considering the number of external to U-Boot projects for dealing with the environment in U-Boot, I don't think that's the case. Simon, perhaps it's worth poking some of those people off-list with a pointer to your series? Something like this should make integration much easier, for most of the existing OTA solutions that support U-Boot. It should also make it easier for OE/buildroot/etc to explain to users how to modify the environment as well. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
