From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32267C07E99 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:54:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9925961166 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:54:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9925961166 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFC8829C0; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:54:37 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="VFLZImn6"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 808F582BE4; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:54:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qv1-xf31.google.com (mail-qv1-xf31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3DBB829C0 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:54:32 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=seanga2@gmail.com Received: by mail-qv1-xf31.google.com with SMTP id f5so8426490qvu.8 for ; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:54:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hY4SNQU3uV7oXfn6lqSgGFVJNnx5WpHIVX4ucTiukno=; b=VFLZImn6dcTY7zvsViHh2JrWJ2wwa9pQerbt4tcdG6psiEzyxdUfe8B+YTV5KznKg0 j7UhkXO6H3A1TZOdIHTXTJvXuW11BP9t3YzcS6wex3odjD6fYp3jVKOAQJRHKDs+h3VI In0zxMYzDF9LsCh65VU6VBwC5fl16ngmXi8+w4xSSsUbfHJaA8rZDruuTtwWcm673XG9 lKd1tA+f1LP83tJJ4aYMEKjTUqgql6dopQKS7RmipZ8RTo2SBd+ps903huffCpgKVW9Z /lAa+DCVULyaEDy2Mobonudh6n6JrowLeESqK2T5nlbCzF3rvYCY3T3TA56svdk/u4Pe bIuQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hY4SNQU3uV7oXfn6lqSgGFVJNnx5WpHIVX4ucTiukno=; b=jS7XBDsn54fNAOEUEdmSvfBrWH6YS8M1WqJ9qZYp0CRE91hwyT62KAcxLG7r8imTP/ e36Jl8mY1G5FYH94yayzKMz0qfBl68ha+BKDPJUiI3kmO1ZvY+uAowvwcJoJxxW14z8t Liy5M78wnAzCanXXH7/EyV2QcKBO/ClGYMkRfQA3LU1DFsG0a02nUDtINckmmwf9XAqC cE3oRKtw2qHPTFFeCb+3EEIvs+GckE2dH96wTeYxhDAXZjWih0oCrTYg956PIzydV9YW RUGyG7ucRyUQo7O0NaluAoTfHXb3GV2zDJct2y9NMWozuZkGkR4lVGmv4wh2d1FGocKw dXrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5310+sNqIyheBEZtsX4iIgyFwKY9fhu9aPiwq/pq59mxn9CkcXtL l1Br7H3Vs+VHtVEG+HJF7Iw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6nPTxHE/jHR0FTTt6XfLAcg7epQMrv2D9fTVSBefHZG01H6H+Fbcoirqsqbmo/TpoYizvhA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:12c7:: with SMTP id s7mr13286014qvv.60.1625500471655; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.201] (pool-74-96-87-9.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [74.96.87.9]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm5077775qkn.118.2021.07.05.08.54.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/28] cli: lil: Rename some functions to be more like TCL To: Simon Glass Cc: U-Boot Mailing List , Tom Rini , =?UTF-8?Q?Marek_Beh=c3=ban?= , Wolfgang Denk , Roland Gaudig , Heinrich Schuchardt , Kostas Michalopoulos References: <20210701061611.957918-1-seanga2@gmail.com> <20210701061611.957918-6-seanga2@gmail.com> From: Sean Anderson Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:54:30 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On 7/5/21 11:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 00:16, Sean Anderson 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 >> --- >> >> 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