Dear Wolfgang Denx,
>> But your suggested optimizations will only be effective if someone tries to
>> write to "serial#". This is not normally done (attempt can be considered
>> an error).
>
> Can it? What make you think so?
>
> There are lots of boards that come fresh out of production with
Dear Ben,
In message <4947ffdb.9040...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> >> Jerry Van Baren already showed you an elegant way to solve this using
> >> scanf().
> >
> > Is scanf() available in u-boot? I couldn't find it.
...
> I think he meant sscanf(), which should be there.
No, we don't have this yet in
Stefan Althoefer wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang Denk
>
>
>> Dear =?iso-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Alth=F6fer?=,
>>
>> In message <531234...@web.de> you wrote:
>>
>>> Then maybe we should have
>>>
>>> #define CONFIG_ENV_PROTECTED_ITEM "ethaddr1,ethaddr2,"
>>>
>>> in board configuration to have the greates
Dear Wolfgang Denk
> Dear =?iso-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Alth=F6fer?=,
>
> In message <531234...@web.de> you wrote:
>> Then maybe we should have
>>
>> #define CONFIG_ENV_PROTECTED_ITEM "ethaddr1,ethaddr2,"
>>
>> in board configuration to have the greatest flexibility?
>
> Jerry Van Baren already sho
Dear =?iso-8859-15?Q?Stefan_Alth=F6fer?=,
In message <531234...@web.de> you wrote:
> Then maybe we should have
>
> #define CONFIG_ENV_PROTECTED_ITEM "ethaddr1,ethaddr2,"
>
> in board configuration to have the greatest flexibility?
Jerry Van Baren already showed you an elegant way to solve t
Dear Stefan Althoefer,
In message you wrote:
>
> > That would be one way to avoid unnecessary tests.
> >
> > Probably not the most elegant approach, agreed.
> >
> > There are other options, though.
>
> But your suggested optimizations will only be effective if someone tries to
> write to "seri
Stefan Althoefer wrote:
> From fdeee62f0902b25be1a2a6bf52fb714b0f4f9e59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Stefan Althoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:17:08 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
>
> This adds "eth[0-9]+addr" to the prote
Hi Wolfgang Denk
> Dear Stefan Althoefer,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> You argue that the code should have a couple of hard to read else cases?
>
> That would be one way to avoid unnecessary tests.
>
> Probably not the most elegant approach, agreed.
>
> There are other opti
Dear Stefan Althoefer,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> You argue that the code should have a couple of hard to read else cases?
That would be one way to avoid unnecessary tests.
Probably not the most elegant approach, agreed.
There are other options, though.
Best regards,
Wolfga
Wolfgang Denk schrieb:
> Dear Stefan Althoefer,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> From fdeee62f0902b25be1a2a6bf52fb714b0f4f9e59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Stefan Althoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:17:08 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] common: nvedit to protec
Dear Stefan Althoefer,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> From fdeee62f0902b25be1a2a6bf52fb714b0f4f9e59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Stefan Althoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:17:08 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
>
>From fdeee62f0902b25be1a2a6bf52fb714b0f4f9e59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefan Althoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:17:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
This adds "eth[0-9]+addr" to the protected
environment variables that can
Dear Ben Warren,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Neat, although it's very tempting to pull a Python 3 and say "screw
> reverse compatibility" and change this naming convention.
If we'd change it, then my vote wouldbe to change ethaddr into
eth0addr :-)
The reasoning for the name (
Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
>> Dear Stefan Althoefer,
>>
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>
>>> This patches cmd_nvedit to reject changes for "ethaddr." in addition to
>>> "ethaddr"
>>> and "serial#". This is intendend to protect changes to additional ether
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stefan Althoefer,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> This patches cmd_nvedit to reject changes for "ethaddr." in addition to
>> "ethaddr"
>> and "serial#". This is intendend to protect changes to additional ethernet
>> addresses (e.g. "ethernet1").
>
> T
Dear Stefan Althoefer,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> This patches cmd_nvedit to reject changes for "ethaddr." in addition to
> "ethaddr"
> and "serial#". This is intendend to protect changes to additional ethernet
> addresses (e.g. "ethernet1").
The patch is bogus, as additional et
This patches cmd_nvedit to reject changes for "ethaddr." in addition to
"ethaddr"
and "serial#". This is intendend to protect changes to additional ethernet
addresses (e.g. "ethernet1").
The code was rewritten to be more clear.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Althoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN
Dear Stefan,
Stefan Althöfer wrote:
> Then maybe we should have
>
> #define CONFIG_ENV_PROTECTED_ITEM "ethaddr1,ethaddr2,"
>
> in board configuration to have the greatest flexibility?
>
>
It might be useful to have a general protection mechanism, but probably
not right now. Please impleme
(Resent in response to complex, non scalable suggestions: IMHO
strncmp (name, "ethaddr", 7)
is a simple and good solution that covers all known and several unknown
cases.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
>
> This patch adds "ethaddr1"
Then maybe we should have
#define CONFIG_ENV_PROTECTED_ITEM "ethaddr1,ethaddr2,"
in board configuration to have the greatest flexibility?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
> >
> > This patch adds "ethaddr1" and "ethaddr2" to the pr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
>
> This patch adds "ethaddr1" and "ethaddr2" to the protected
> environment variables that can only be written once.
>
>
> The patch is against "latest" u-boot git-repository
>
> Please be patient if st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
>
> This patch adds "ethaddr1" and "ethaddr2" to the protected
> environment variables that can only be written once.
>
>
> The patch is against "latest" u-boot git-repository
>
> Please be patient if
[PATCH] common: nvedit to protect additional ethernet addresses
This patch adds "ethaddr1" and "ethaddr2" to the protected
environment variables that can only be written once.
The patch is against "latest" u-boot git-repository
Please be patient if style of submission or patches are
offendi
23 matches
Mail list logo
