From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:56:47 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 3/3] fs: add partition switch libary, implement ls and fsload commands In-Reply-To: <50808F70.3040704@ti.com> References: <1349981969-26113-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1349981969-26113-3-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <507C3ACD.9070409@gmail.com> <507C3E35.70300@wwwdotorg.org> <20121018230146.GY27770@bill-the-cat> <50808CE2.3020203@gmail.com> <50808F70.3040704@ti.com> Message-ID: <5081864F.4090708@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/18/2012 05:23 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On 10/18/12 16:12, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 10/18/2012 06:01 PM, Tom Rini wrote: ... >>>>> On 10/11/2012 01:59 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>> Implement "ls" and "fsload" commands that act like >>>>>> {fat,ext2}{ls,load}, and transparently handle either >>>>>> file-system. This scheme could easily be extended to >>>>>> other filesystem types; I only didn't do it for zfs >>>>>> because I don't have any filesystems of that type to test >>>>>> with. ... >>> Baring further discussion, I intend to grab this really soon, >>> as it sounds like it's a functional starting point, however we >>> wish to make this happen. Or am I not following? Thanks! > >> It's your call. I'd rather see clean-up first and features >> second, but that's just me. Either way works. The amount of >> duplication in u-boot just annoys me. Hopefully the DM work will >> fix some of it. > > I too would like to see more clean-up, Which clean-up exactly? The only duplication I see here is that ext2load/fatload could be modified to simply call into do_fsload. That'd be pretty simple, I think, assuming the behaviour change was OK (e.g. fatload would suddenly support either FAT or ext2*), and that cmd_fs.c and fs.c would both always be pulled in. Re: refactoring of the interface to the filesystem code: I'm curious what the DM-related plans are for filesystems. It seems that any such refactoring would be part of that work. Unfortunately I haven't been paying any attention to who might be proposing doing what and when there. Would it be appropriate to defer any fs-related API changes until any DM+fs rework went it to avoid conflicts or duplicate work?