From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:46:57 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] sunxi: add "fel" boot target In-Reply-To: <55F6B29D.7000309@redhat.com> References: <1441289520-22749-1-git-send-email-bernhard.nortmann@web.de> <1441289520-22749-3-git-send-email-bernhard.nortmann@web.de> <55F1CD9E.6080303@redhat.com> <55F29F86.5050901@web.de> <20150914133353.1e1658c4@i7> <55F6B29D.7000309@redhat.com> Message-ID: <55F6B3B1.3060404@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, On 14-09-15 13:42, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Supporting both boot.scr and uEnv.txt for FEL boot seems to be >> reasonably simple to me. You can even do it in a single patch >> series. As Hans suggests, please take care of the boot.scr case >> first. Then maybe introduce uEnv.txt support with an additional >> patch. > > I'm still not convinced that support uEnv.txt is necessary at all, > but I agree that if we this having this done through extra fields, > rather then through a union would be better. p.s. As for the version byte vs minor/major scheme discussion. Why not simply declare that we will always be backwards compatible, and only ever add new fields ? Then we can simply add version checks around those new fields, and have both back and forward compatibility. In this case the single byte should suffice nicely. Regards, Hans