From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gvb.uboot@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:37:50 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] bootm state -- stateful vs stateless
In-Reply-To: <91A0A956-0585-43B4-A2F2-16B2066A4933@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <91A0A956-0585-43B4-A2F2-16B2066A4933@kernel.crashing.org>
Message-ID: <489BB17E.1060404@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Kumar Gala wrote:
> One of the things that wasn't clear to me is if we are ok with 
> maintaining state between 'bootm' subcommand inside u-boot or if we 
> really require passing all state via arguments and env.
> 
> While I know it would be nice if the subcommands were stateless I dont 
> think this is practical.
> 
> state we'd have to keep track of:
> * arguments to the "top level" bootm command
> * type of arguments (fit vs plain addresses)
> * Image information, for FIT we get something like:

[snip of killer state information]

> * entry point of OS image
> * region tracking of memory regions used by previous subcommands (OS 
> image, bd_t, fdt, initrd, etc.)
> 
> This seems like a lot of state to pass around in the env and via 
> arguments to commands.  My vote is for stateful sub_commands.
> 
> - k

Useful info and analysis.  I agree, it looks like we will need to be 
stateful.

Best regards,
gvb