Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] env: Allow U-Boot scripts to be placed in a .env file

Tom Rini
2021-10-05T15:52:47Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 09:33:18AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 08:56, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Simon,
> >
> > In message <CAPnjgZ1tRi5SsqU0K8HXgj-4xCs7i9TLX4Mj0_D=Cpj8BAn32w@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Add a feature that brings in a .env file associated with the board
> > > > > config, if present. To use it, create a file in a board/<vendor>/env
> > > > > directory called <board>.env (or common.env if you want the same
> > > > > environment for all boards).
> > > >
> > > > This should be no exclusive "or" here. If a common.env exists, it
> > > > should be used for all boards, and if additionally one ore more
> > > > <board>.env files exist, these should ALSO be applied to the
> > > > respective boards.
> > >
> > > Is it not enough to use #include in the main file? We have a similar
> > > feature with the u-boot.dtsi files and in that case we only choose the
> > > most specific.
> >
> > 1) This requires that the .env files are run through CPP, which is
> > only added in a later patch.
>
> OK perhaps I should just merge the patches. It is a bit artificial
> having two and it seems that people agree we need the += syntax.

It's important to maintain bisectability, yes. But functionality
should be evaluated at the end of the series, not intermediate steps. I
don't have a strong opinion either way on if these two patches are
merged, or not. So on a similar note, all of the feedback about the
current env documentation is good and helpful, but I think a txt -> rST
then enhance the rST makes the most sense so that we don't "hide"
improvements within the migration.

--
Tom

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