Wolfgang,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > In any case, I already have the more direct (and less generalized)
> version
> > of fixup_silent_linux() written and will send out a patch with just that
> > shortly.
>
> Please consider it NAKed.
One side effect of not commi
Dear Doug Anderson,
In message
you wrote:
>
> ...then, we can decide if we want to add the abstract munging tools and
> where to add them (either a separate lib/cmdline.c file or direct into
> bootm). If you want them, I'll submit a patch with all of your review
> feedback addressed and a seco
Dear Doug Anderson,
In message
you wrote:
>
> I'm happy to explain. :) In our setup, the Linux command line is
> constructed (in part) by reading from the disk. When we load the kernel, we
> also load the kernel command line. It is convenient for us if this kernel
> command line on disk cont
Mike,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> what is the difference in compiled sizes ? if the abstracted funcs add
> negligible overhead, i think merging these locally in the bootm code might
> make sense in a pure clean up sense ...
>
Compared to the simple version I just
On Thursday 20 October 2011 13:06:23 Doug Anderson wrote:
> Based on your comments, I'll assume that you're not interested in the more
> general command line munging tools and will abandon them for now until
> there is a clear need for them.
what is the difference in compiled sizes ? if the abstr
Wolfgang,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Sorry, but could you please explain why anybody would need this?
>
I'm happy to explain. :) In our setup, the Linux command line is
constructed (in part) by reading from the disk. When we load the kernel, we
also load the kern
Dear Doug Anderson,
In message <1319063459-4804-2-git-send-email-diand...@chromium.org> you wrote:
> It appears that there are a handful of places in u-boot that we want
> to munge the linux command line. This adds some helper functions that
> make that easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 21:07:11 Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'm not particularly enamored with this naming style. i find the style
> > of "_" to be easier on the eyes rather than this
> > RPN.
> >
> > i.e. cmdline_param_remove() and cmd
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 October 2011 18:30:56 Doug Anderson wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/common/cmdline.c
> >
> > +/*
> > + * To run unit tests in this file:
> > + * gcc -DRUN_UNITTESTS -Wall -Werror common/cmdline.c -o cmdline &&
> > ./cmd
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i'm not particularly enamored with this naming style. i find the style of
> "_" to be easier on the eyes rather than this RPN.
>
> i.e. cmdline_param_remove() and cmdline_param_add()
>
I'm happy to name it whatever you'd like. My next pa
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 18:30:56 Doug Anderson wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/cmdline.h
>
> +int remove_cmdline_param(char *cmdline, const char *param_name);
> +void add_cmdline_param(char *cmdline, const char *toappend, int bufsize);
i'm not particularly enamored with this naming sty
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 18:30:56 Doug Anderson wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/common/cmdline.c
>
> +/*
> + * To run unit tests in this file:
> + * gcc -DRUN_UNITTESTS -Wall -Werror common/cmdline.c -o cmdline &&
> ./cmdline
> + */
> +#ifdef RUN_UNITTESTS
i'm not sure this part should be mer
12 matches
Mail list logo
