Hi, On 25/10/17 10:42, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:21:43PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: >> That being said I have prepared a patch to switch sunxi ARM64 boards >> over to ENV_IS_IN_FAT, because I guess we will hit the wall soon there >> and have no Thumb2 to get off lightly. And I believe that the arm64 >> boards mostly use a standardized way of booting, also are much less wide >> spread, so the number of affected users is probably less there. >> >> I am just thinking of whether it's worthwhile to have some transition >> code, which tries multiple environment locations (first FAT, then MMC, >> for instance), or even contains code to migrate from one to another. > > I started to look into the latter as well, because that's really what > I'd like to see (for some time at least). > > I guess having a custom environment handling method would be the best, > and it doesn't seem that hard. > > The behaviour I had in mind would be, when reading: > - Look for an environment in a FAT partition > - If not: > - Load the raw environment > - Print a warning > > When writing: > - Try to write the environment to a FAT partition > - If it fails: > - Write to the raw environment > - Print a warning > > That way, we can slowly migrate users in a transparent manner as soon > as they would use saveenv, and we also provide a warning that things > might (and actually will) break in the future if the setup isn't > changed.
That was exactly what I had in mind as well! Do you have some spare cycles to implement this? If not, I can give it a try. > We could even just rely on the existing methods from both standards > environment code, we just need to make the functions !static. There is even a Delphic comment in env/Kconfig: "At *present* the environment can be stored in only one place." ;-) Cheers, Andre. P.S. I will arrive tonight in Prague, for the DT workshop tomorrow. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
