Re: [PATCH v12 00/24] Modernize U-Boot shell

Tom Rini
2023-12-19T19:32:09Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:30:01PM +0100, Francis Laniel wrote:

> Hi.
>
>
> During 2021 summer, Sean Anderson wrote a contribution to add a new shell, based
> on LIL, to U-Boot [1, 2].
> While one of the goals of this contribution was to address the fact actual
> U-Boot shell, which is based on Busybox hush, is old there was a discussion
> about adding a new shell versus updating the actual one [3, 4].
>
> So, in this series, with Harald Seiler, we updated the actual U-Boot shell to
> reflect what is currently in Busybox source code.
> Basically, this contribution is about taking a snapshot of Busybox shell/hush.c
> file (as it exists in commit 37460f5da) and adapt it to suit U-Boot needs.

So, here's a problem. With:
commit a4bee0b45504397d71302cd1b186f5651424a332
Author: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Date: Sun Oct 1 19:15:25 2023 -0600

bootstd: Add a menu option to bootflow scan

Allow showing a menu and automatically booting, with 'bootflow scan'.
This is more convenient than using a script.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

We now have a test that checks for a return code getting populated back
up to the command line. With the old hush, we eventually get:
Boot failed (err=-14)
And -14 means -EFAULT which is what's expected. With the new hush we
get:
Boot failed (err=1)
Which isn't right. Can you please see what needs to be fixed and post
v13? Thanks.

--
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]