From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:41:59 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] bootm as a script -- requires HUSH? In-Reply-To: References: <44343BF5-2E91-4596-8CCA-61CEA1F84F63@kernel.crashing.org> <489B2F0B.1090303@ge.com> Message-ID: <489B41F7.6010107@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 Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > >> Kumar Gala wrote: >>> if I understand Wolfgang and Jerry they'd like to recode the control >>> flow of the bootm command in the scripting env u-boot provides. >>> This seems to imply that we'd require HUSH as the simple parser >>> doesn't seem to provide any control statements like (if..then..else). >>> is this correct? >>> - k >> >> Yes. > > Than I think the ideas you guys have aren't beneficial to anyone. What > benefit to we gain by doing this? Its going to be slower and larger. > > - k ...for some subset of "anyone." A lot of people resisted moving to the linux 2.6 kernel because it is slower and larger than the 2.4 kernel. A lot of embedded devices (and probably some servers and desktops) are still running 2.4 kernels. I would not conclude that 2.6 isn't beneficial to anyone. Maybe the destination turns into a failure, but half the fun is planning the trip. gvb