[U-Boot-Users] outline of bootm script

[Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <489A01A3.6000800@ge.com> you wrote:

[snip]

>> Aside: verify should be an image verify command, not a env variable flag 
>> (see below).  This is probably true of most of the current env 
> 
> We alreay have a verify command. It's called "imls".

<ack>

>> variables: the reason we need them is because we kept throwing stuff 
>> into "bootm" and then controlling it with env variables rather than 
>> having a sequence and controlling it with what commands are in the 
>> sequence.  (Part of my simplification argument...)
> 
> Hint: keep it backwards compatible, please.

Yes, and then deprecate it.  ;-)

>> I also was thinking we should invent a new major/minor command as you 
>> outlined, but it didn't occur to me that "bootm" would be a good major 
>> command.  This is a good idea: a bare "bootm <addr> (<addr>|-) <addr>" 
>> could be used for backward compatibility and "bootm <subcmd>" for New 
>> Improved[tm] functionality.
> 
> How do your differentiate beween <addr> and <subcmd> then?

Don't use deadbeef as a command?  ;-)  With judicious choices for subcmd 
names, we can first check for subcmd and fall through to the backward 
compatibility.

[snip]

Best regards,
gvb