Hi Robert, On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:04:20 -0500, "Robert P. J. Day" <rpj...@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> Quoting Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>: > > > Hi Robert, > > > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:53:43 -0500, "Robert P. J. Day" > > <rpj...@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > > >> another observation from my weekend perusal of all of the > >> common/cmd_*.c files is that, despite its "cmd_" filename prefix, the > >> source file cmd_disk.c doesn't define any actual u-boot commands. > >> according to what i see as u-boot filename naming conventions, it > >> shouldn't be named "cmd_*", should it? > > > > That's arguable: apparently it provides common_diskboot() which > > implements commands for cmd_ide, cmd_scsi, cmd_usb which use it for > > implementing their do_diskboot, du_scsiboot, do_usbboot commands > > respectively. It's purely related to cmd_*. > > just to be clear, i have no strong opinion on this either way, but > my understanding is that source files with the name of "common/cmd_*.c" > typically define at least one u-boot "command" with the U_BOOT_CMD macro. > as far as i can tell, cmd_disk.c is the only counterexample of that. > > it may be true that that file provides utility routines for other > actual "commmand" files, but so do many others. for example, cmd_fdt.c > defines the behaviour of the actual "fdt" command, while fdt-related > utility routines are in fdt_support.c or even in libfdt/. That's understandable as libfdt provides support for much more than commands; OTOH, cmd_disk provides support *only* to commands. > it's no big deal, i'm just pointing out that cmd_disk.c flies in the > face of a fairly obvious pattern in u-boot filenaming convention. and > on that note, i will shut up about it. :-) > > rday Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
