[U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd_fdt.c: fix parse of byte streams and strings

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

Andy Fleming wrote:
>>
>>> Strings are backwards compatible because the hush parser strips the 
>>> quotes so all that that part of Ken's patch does is to extend it to 
>>> paste together multiple arguments rather than limiting it to exactly 
>>> one argument.  The following also produces the original string:
>>>  fdt set /ethernet at f00 interrupts "this is" "a string"
>>> I'm more concerned with the [] form because that really is a syntax 
>>> change.  The original syntax with a single quoted argument will no 
>>> longer be parsed if I understand the change (I need to apply the 
>>> patch and confirm this):
>>> Old:
>>>   fdt set /ethernet at f00 interrupts "[33 2 34 2 36 2]"
>>> becomes
>>>   fdt set /ethernet at f00 interrupts [ 33 2 34 2 36 2 ]
>>> Note that the *must* be a space between "[" and "33" and between "2" 
>>> and "]" because the "[" and "]" now have to be separate arguments. 
>>>  This is what Andy did with "<" and ">" with no public outcry, so it 
>>> is probably OK.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ==== Does anybody have a problem with this syntax change? ====
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'm not thrilled with it...  I'd think the code could be made to 
>> handle the [, ], <, or > being in the same parameter as one of the 
>> numbers.
> 
> I agree.  Also, I don't think the capability of creating string 
> parameters without using quotes is necessary, or necessarily a good 
> idea.  The goal should be to make the values we pass in reflect the 
> syntax of the device tree, itself, as that is what the naive observer 
> would attempt.  If I required spaces around "<" and ">", then shame on 
> me!  :)
> 
> Andy

I need to try
   fdt set /ethernet at f00 interrupts <33 2 34 2 36 2>
to confirm my reading of the code, it could be a limitation in my mental 
parsing, not the parsing code.

...and shame on me too if that is the case since I accepted your change. 
;-/  If true, fixing it shouldn't be difficult.

I really need to make some time to create automated regression tests. :-/

Best regards,
gvb