From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gvb.uboot@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:58:15 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] granularity of bootm subcommands
In-Reply-To: <20080808212711.GA3593@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net>
References: <55863EE7-49CC-4B47-B7E6-2570067139CE@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20080808212711.GA3593@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net>
Message-ID: <489CDD97.4000009@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

Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 08:37:47AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Finally I'd like to change the subcommands to be prefixed with '_' to  
>> make parsing easier:
>>    bootm _start <args>
>>    bootm _prep
>>    bootm _load_os
>>    ...
> 
> Ick.  How about using a different name than "bootm"?
> 
> -Scott

Yeah, reusing "bootm" may be too clever.

What I had in mind for overloading bootm is to do strncmp() operations 
for each of the subcommands (and where none of the subcommands could be 
interpreted as hex numbers - i.e. have a letter g-z or "_" in it) and, 
if none of the valid subcommands passed, do a legacy implementation 
where the three parameters are parsed as hex (or "-" for the ramdisk).

Again, while I like the concept of using "bootm" since we are familiar 
with it (and I don't have a better name), I would not be adverse to 
using a different command name since the New Improved "bootm" will be 
substantially different than bootm-classic.

Best regards,
gvb