[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[J.C. Wren]

I notice that when I hit return at a U-Boot > prompt, it executes the last
command again.  CONFIG_SYS_HUSH_PARSER is defined, from U-Boot
2009.08-rc1-00030-g56bdfa9-dirty.

It this is expected, it seems like a *really* bad idea.  It's cost me having
to reload 6M images at 115200 twice now.

--jc

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[Jerry Van Baren]

J.C. Wren wrote:
> I notice that when I hit return at a U-Boot > prompt, it executes the last
> command again.  CONFIG_SYS_HUSH_PARSER is defined, from U-Boot
> 2009.08-rc1-00030-g56bdfa9-dirty.
> 
> It this is expected, it seems like a *really* bad idea.  It's cost me having
> to reload 6M images at 115200 twice now.
> 
> --jc

Hi JC,

It is a configuration/design decision: see include/command.h line 46ff, 
struct cmd_tbl_s, field "repeatable".  This is configured via the 
U_BOOT_CMD macro.

<http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=include/command.h;h=55caa6eaf888cdb916d3937a5054ad862ec0e0ab;hb=HEAD#l46>

Sometimes it is nice (e.g. sequencing through memory dumps), sometimes 
it bites (you found one of those!).  IMHO, it is enabled in places where 
it would be better to rely on command line recall rather than the repeat 
function.

I think the repeat functionality predated the command line recall 
functionality, so it use to be more desirable to repeat the command 
because there wasn't an alternative way to repeat the command.

Best regards,
gvb

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jerry Van Baren,

In message <4A773C1C.7080109@ge.com> you wrote:
>
> It is a configuration/design decision: see include/command.h line 46ff, 
> struct cmd_tbl_s, field "repeatable".  This is configured via the 
> U_BOOT_CMD macro.
> 
> <http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=include/command.h;h=55caa6eaf888cdb916d3937a5054ad862ec0e0ab;hb=HEAD#l46>
> 
> Sometimes it is nice (e.g. sequencing through memory dumps), sometimes 
> it bites (you found one of those!).  IMHO, it is enabled in places where 
> it would be better to rely on command line recall rather than the repeat 
> function.

The general rule is that any command that is non-destructive is
repeatable, i. e. a "tftp" will be repeated, while an "erase" will
not.

Indeed, today command line history makes it partially dispensable, but
often at the cost of more typing (think about using the "md" command).

> I think the repeat functionality predated the command line recall 
> functionality, so it use to be more desirable to repeat the command 
> because there wasn't an alternative way to repeat the command.

Correct, this, and because that was exactly what I wanted when I
implemented it :-) 

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
 The software required `Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux.

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[J.C. Wren]

All fair points.

It appears that the 'nand' commands don't use the new parser structure.  The
'nand' and 'nboot' commands use the U_BOOT_CMD macro, and have repeatable
defined as 1.  The 'nand' command is doing it's own sub-command parsing (via
strcnmp()'s), and as a result, all 'nand' commands are repeatable.  That
probably isn't a good idea, and I would request the the 'nand' command
itself be made non-repeatable.

--jc

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:

> Dear Jerry Van Baren,
>
> In message <4A773C1C.7080109@ge.com> you wrote:
> >
> > It is a configuration/design decision: see include/command.h line 46ff,
> > struct cmd_tbl_s, field "repeatable".  This is configured via the
> > U_BOOT_CMD macro.
> >
> > <
> http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=include/command.h;h=55caa6eaf888cdb916d3937a5054ad862ec0e0ab;hb=HEAD#l46
> >
> >
> > Sometimes it is nice (e.g. sequencing through memory dumps), sometimes
> > it bites (you found one of those!).  IMHO, it is enabled in places where
> > it would be better to rely on command line recall rather than the repeat
> > function.
>
> The general rule is that any command that is non-destructive is
> repeatable, i. e. a "tftp" will be repeated, while an "erase" will
> not.
>
> Indeed, today command line history makes it partially dispensable, but
> often at the cost of more typing (think about using the "md" command).
>
> > I think the repeat functionality predated the command line recall
> > functionality, so it use to be more desirable to repeat the command
> > because there wasn't an alternative way to repeat the command.
>
> Correct, this, and because that was exactly what I wanted when I
> implemented it :-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
>  The software required `Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux.
>

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:07:17PM -0400, J.C. Wren wrote:
> All fair points.
> 
> It appears that the 'nand' commands don't use the new parser structure.

Do you mean U_BOOT_CMD_MKENT, find_cmd_tbl, etc?

>  The 'nand' and 'nboot' commands use the U_BOOT_CMD macro, and have
> repeatable defined as 1.  The 'nand' command is doing it's own
> sub-command parsing (via strcnmp()'s), and as a result, all 'nand'
> commands are repeatable.  That probably isn't a good idea, and I would
> request the the 'nand' command itself be made non-repeatable.

The one nand command that probably should be repeatable is "nand dump",
with auto-increment similar to "md".

-Scott

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[J.C. Wren]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:07:17PM -0400, J.C. Wren wrote:
> > All fair points.
> >
> > It appears that the 'nand' commands don't use the new parser structure.
>
> Do you mean U_BOOT_CMD_MKENT, find_cmd_tbl, etc?


Not sure about that part.  I just went back and looked at cmd_i2c.c,
cmd_yaffs2.c and a few others and I see they all do sub-command processing
with strncmp(), too.  I had looked at one other file prior to my post, and
thought I understood sub-commands were plugged-in with macros.  My mistake.

I forgot to mention that all the yaffs commands are top level.  If I were
me, I'd like to see the yaffs command broken down into a sub-menu.  That's
just a minor nit, as having them all in the top level makes the help a
little more unwieldy.  And they'd be used infrequently enough that having
them under a 'y' sub-menu wouldn't make them much more difficult to use.


>
> >  The 'nand' and 'nboot' commands use the U_BOOT_CMD macro, and have
> > repeatable defined as 1.  The 'nand' command is doing it's own
> > sub-command parsing (via strcnmp()'s), and as a result, all 'nand'
> > commands are repeatable.  That probably isn't a good idea, and I would
> > request the the 'nand' command itself be made non-repeatable.
>
> The one nand command that probably should be repeatable is "nand dump",
> with auto-increment similar to "md".


Makes sense.

>
>
> -Scott
>

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear "J.C. Wren",

In message <17434f2e0908041305i629aef0dmbf23e620a61fe505@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> Not sure about that part.  I just went back and looked at cmd_i2c.c,
> cmd_yaffs2.c and a few others and I see they all do sub-command processing
> with strncmp(), too.  I had looked at one other file prior to my post, and

Yes, that's the old, deprecated way of doing this. Today we know
better.

> I forgot to mention that all the yaffs commands are top level.  If I were
> me, I'd like to see the yaffs command broken down into a sub-menu.  That's

Please feel free to submit a patch.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

[U-Boot] Normal command line behavior?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 12:07:17 J.C. Wren wrote:
> All fair points.

please do not top post in your replies
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090813/3af46683/attachment.pgp