From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:29:02 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] outline of bootm script In-Reply-To: <20080806202151.DFB8724885@gemini.denx.de> References: <20080806202151.DFB8724885@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <489A098E.1020104@ge.com> 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 <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". >> 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 (|-) " >> could be used for backward compatibility and "bootm " for New >> Improved[tm] functionality. > > How do your differentiate beween and 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