On Thursday 16 July 2009 22:08:27 Matthias Fuchs wrote: > > OK. But if your "sbe" command is "better" than the current bootstrap one, > > then let's see if it makes sense to use your command as the common one. > > Dirk's approach is very generic. Putting nothing but the EEPROM data and a > descriptive table into the board file is what we need.
I'm aware of this, since I suggested to Dirk to implement it this way. ;) > I only suggest to > add an additional label to each entry that is used instead of using numbers > and I'd to pass this label as argument instead of the a number. One could > use the numbers as labels also :-) Ack. > When you do no pass the argument we could either print the descriptive > texts as menu (as DIrk did so far) and wait for input or just print the > texts as kind of help and the must supply an argument if he want to change > something (I prefer the latter). Yes, just printing all available config options when called without parameter is what I prefer as well. Something like this: => 4xx_config (or 4xx_bootstrap) Available configurations: Name CPU PLB OPB EBC Boot-Location 1 333 133 66 66 NOR 2 333 133 66 66 NAND 3 333 133 66 66 PCI 4 400 133 66 66 NOR 5 400 133 66 66 NAND 6 400 160 80 53 NOR ... The board maintainer could of course use real "names" instead of the numbers here. > > > > Does you command support more features? What's the main > > > > difference? > > > > > > Much simpler. Just call sbe with a descriptive argument like a CPU > > > frequency or something like '667-66' on a 440EPx target with 66Mhz PCI > > > clock or 'sr-test-only' for something you will remove later :-). This > > > has two advantages over just using > > > numbers: You can remove configurations without making the following > > > configs in the table moving to the front and its a little more secure > > > meaning you have to type a couple of valid character to reconfigure > > > the clocking. Just using "bootstrap 5" is error-prone. > > > > Ack. > > > > > Well, I like my syntax and behavior, but I do not want to totally > > > dismiss Dirk's idea as long as I can keep my sbe command :-) > > > > Seems that "your" command is not so bad. ;) I'll take a look at it > > tomorrow. Perhaps we can use some of your ideas in such a new common > > (PPC4xx) implementation. :) > > My implementation is nothing but ar if-!strcmp-else-if-!strcmp > implementation. But putting things together is a good idea. Yes, the implementation itself is non-optimal. I'll send an updated version of Dirk's patch with the "new" user interface and a new command-naming (hopefully) today. Best regards, Stefan ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: off...@denx.de ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
