From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:02:22 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Document config_distro_bootcmd environment variables for interactive booting. In-Reply-To: <20150319205334.GB8313@excalibur.cnev.de> References: <20150317161630.GH32541@bill-the-cat> <1426794079-8931-1-git-send-email-merker@debian.org> <1426794079-8931-2-git-send-email-merker@debian.org> <550B292A.7080901@wwwdotorg.org> <20150319205334.GB8313@excalibur.cnev.de> Message-ID: <550B395E.40509@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 03/19/2015 02:53 PM, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:53:14PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>> +Interactively booting from a specific device at the u-boot prompt >>> +================================================================= >>> + >>> +For interactively booting from a user-selected device at the u-boot command >>> +prompt, the environment provides predefined bootcmd_ variables for >>> +every target defined in boot_targets, which can be run be the user. >>> + >>> +Examples: >>> + >>> + - run bootcmd_usb0 >>> + boots from the first USB mass storage device >>> + >>> + - run bootcmd_mmc1 >>> + boots from the second MMC device >> >> Should we enumerate all the possible device types, e.g. include >> bootcmd_sata0, bootcmd_ide0, ...? > > Hm, I suppose that depends on whether there is such a thing as > definitve list of all possible device types on all platforms and > how many elements are in this list. Are functionally equivalent > devices named the same on all platforms, i.e. is a PATA > interface always ide0, or could it be ide0 on one platform and > pata0 on another? The list is limited to the macros that are set up in config_distro_bootcmd.h. At least for the device types supported there, and the set of platforms which use that header so far, a particular device type is always named the same on all platforms. I'd expect a patch that added a new device type to the header to update the list in the documentation. >> In the text, perhaps rephrase bootcmd_ as >> bootcmd_, and note that is not optional in the >> command name? > > I had thought about explictly using devtype and devnum, but there > are device types such as pxe which do not have a devnum, so I > chose to use the generic designation instead. I can > change that, but it might cause confusion so that a user would > try to use something like "run bootcmd_pxe0" which would not > work. I would therefore prefer the generic designation. Ah yes. Perhaps continue to use and then explain that when is a storage device that can have multiple instances, the format of must be , but in other cases (pxe, dhcp), it is just a standalone name?