From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:09:16 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Patch: allow a fixed port for TFTP (take 3) In-Reply-To: <20050112001027.30712C108D@atlas.denx.de> References: <20050112001027.30712C108D@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <41E4DB2C.1010908@orkun.us> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: >In message <41E4657F.6010406@orkun.us> you wrote: > > >>I will pledge for clarity over 6 more bytes in environment which most >>boards will not define anyway. If that is not reasonable, please allow >>for "tftpsrcport" or "tftpcport". >> >> > >So be it "tftpsrcport" then. Or "tftpsrcp" :-) > > I prefer "tftpsrcport". I hope Jerry will agee as well. >["tftpcport" ??? TFT-PC-Port? Or 'c' like what???] > > 'c' was to stand for "client". Just like bootpc and bootps in /etc/services >>I actually want to provide a complimentary patch over this one to make >>the tftp server port configurable which the environment variable can be >>appropriately named as one of "tftpserverport", "tftpdestport" or >> >> > >tftpdstport or tftpdstp, please. > > IMHO, "tftpdstport" is better. >>"tftpsport". I also want to use the same CONFIG_TFTP_PORT variable to >> >> > >[Seems to be some funny kind of exercise, this: TFTP sport. And is >misleading - TFTP _S_ource Port ?] > > Yes, that is kind of vague. Again, I used bootpc and bootps analogy. >>enable both environment variables unless you object in which case naming >>the config variables as CONFIG_TFTP_CLIENT_PORT and >>CONFIG_TFTP_SERVER_PORT is probably better. >> >> > >OK. > > OK for which? OK to use CONFIG_TFTP_PORT for enabling code for both "tftpsrcport" and "tftpdstport"? Best regards, Tolunay