From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] Inconsistencies in commands regarding load_addr
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:36:35 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5617DF03.3050306@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56177AC8.1020707@wsystem.com>
On 10/09/2015 02:28 AM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
>
> On 08/10/2015 23:29, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Stephen,
>>
>> In message <56167DB6.3000508@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What's the expected correct behavior here?
>>>>
>>>> After successful loading the data to memory, load_addr should be set
>>>> correctly, for all commands. In the error case, the value of
>>>> load_addr is undefined.
>>>
>>> Is this documented anywhere? If not, I'm not convinced that there's a
>>> contract to be followed; it "just happens" that some filesystem-related
>>> commands work(ed) that way (and as Beno?t pointed out, apparently some
>>> don't irrespective of the mentioned patch).
>>
>> I'm afraid it's not documented, but it is what I would consider a sane
>> and consistent behaviour. If we intend to implement POLA [1] (and I
>> very much think we should), this is how U-Boot should behave.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
>
> I'm not certain that this would be the least astonishing behavior. When I read
> the documentation, I rather expect the loadaddr environment variable to be used
> whenever the address is omitted in a command invocation. Moreover, one may have
> to read/load several data pieces before booting, and the last loaded piece would
> not necessarily be the one containing the kernel to be booted. This should at
> least be documented.
>
> Another approach would be to compel users to pass an address for all commands.
> Implicit behaviors are always dangerous, all the more if they are undocumented.
> But of course, this would break some existing configurations.
I tend to agree with all of the above; U-Boot's
implicit/automatic/hidden/undocumented usage of variables that I didn't
specify on the command-line, and setting of variables as a side-effect
of executing commands, has always been quite astonishing (rather than
the opposite of astonishing) to me:-(
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-09 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-06 15:00 [U-Boot] Inconsistencies in commands regarding load_addr Benoît Thébaudeau
2015-10-06 18:09 ` Stephen Warren
2015-10-06 19:07 ` Benoît Thébaudeau
2015-10-08 4:40 ` Wolfgang Denk
2015-10-08 14:29 ` Stephen Warren
2015-10-08 21:29 ` Wolfgang Denk
2015-10-09 8:28 ` Benoît Thébaudeau
2015-10-09 13:18 ` Wolfgang Denk
2015-10-09 14:01 ` Benoît Thébaudeau
2015-10-09 14:55 ` Wolfgang Denk
2015-10-09 15:36 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5617DF03.3050306@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.