Re: [RFC PATCH 05/28] cli: lil: Rename some functions to be more like TCL

[Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>]

On 7/5/21 11:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 00:16, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Several functions have different names than they do in TCL. To make things
>> easier for those familiar with TCL, rename them to their TCL equivalents.
>> At the moment, this is only done for functions not used by LIL_FULL. Some
>> functions need more substantive work to conform them to TCL. For example,
>> in TCL, there is a `string` function with a subcommand of `compare`, which
>> is the same as the top-level function `compare`. Several functions also
>> have no TCL equivalent. Do we need these?
>>
>> TODO: do this for all functions
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>>   common/cli_lil.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> Is your intent to create a fork of this in U-Boot? 

Yes. I believe some of the major additions I have made (especially "[RFC
PATCH 21/28] cli: lil: Add a distinct parsing step") would not be
accepted by upstream.

> Could we not update things upstream, at least as an option, to avoid
> carrying these patches?

For some of the smaller patches, that may be possible. However, I am not
a fan of the major amount of ifdefs that Hush has. For something as core
as a shell, I think we should be free to make changes as we see fit
without worrying about how it will affect a hypothetical backport.

For this patch in particular, I believe upstream would no accept it
because it would break backwards compatibility for existing LIL users.
However, I view compatibility with TCL as a whole more valuble than
compatibility with LIL.

--Sean