On 08/09/2012 10:17 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Gerlando Falauto,
In message<1333391204-16318-1-git-send-email-gerlando.fala...@keymile.com> you
wrote:
This patchset modifies the handling of all the operations on the environment
(set/import/default) so to unify handling of special variables.
On top of that we implement a selective "env default".
A selective "env import" would imply a user API change and should therefore
be discussed separately.
NOTE:
The entire patchset generates an increase in code size of about 1200 bytes
on a PowerPC target.
As much as I would like to get rid of the set_default_vars() function in
env_common.c, I have not found a nice way to do so.
It appears we are stuch with this patch set. Last thing I remember
was that Marek reviewed thes epatches, and had a few comments /
requests for changes. But I cannot remember having seen any more
eplies from you.
As far as I can remember (or rather, as far as I can understand reading
the whole thread once again), I had managed to persuade Marek to
"accept" the first 5 patches out of 6 (I guess more by means of
confusion than real arguments :-) )
Then on patch 6 we got stuck on:
>> [me]
I'm not particularly fond of it either, but I'd rather do that than
overwrite the original array. Not that it's needed afterwards by the
caller...
Of course the same information (variables "used") could be tracked in
some other way (e.g. a bitmask array).
> [Marek]
Well won't bitfield suffice then?
[what I failed to reply]
I get the impression that would probably bloat the code even more, but I
haven't checked that.
I'm not sure about the binary
code size, but it would just make things much more complicated to
read... and it's not like this feature (selective importing) is the core
of the bootloader, I guess.
We can of course argue whether going through the hassle of deleting a
variable specified on the command line which is not defined in the
default/imported env is really the right thing to do (in other words,
whether the whole patch has the right to exist!), but that's a different
story. That's why I enqueued it as a separate patch.
Honestly, I'm not in the position to properly argue here because I'm still
making myself familiar with the env part of uboot
Which I remember interpreting as "I will follow up later"
Is this correct? So what is the current state? Will there be any
resubmission, or should these be applied as is,
I don't remember having any more leads to follow except for the bitfield
part on the last (6th) patch. But I wouldn't call my memory a reliable
source of information.
So please step forward if there's any suggestion.
or should they be dropped altogether?
If anyone's counting hands, I'm voting against this latest action... :-)
Just so I know, are we talking about the merge window closing on August
11th anyway?
Thanks,
Gerlando
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
