Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 05:59, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Simon, > > In message > <CAPnjgZ106dBqzJdVYpufp4mztf3_eFoX9isSm=w_c5udofj...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: > > > > > I really think your fixed filename proposal does not work well in > > > reality. The file name should be Kconfig configurable. See [1] > > > for details. > > > > > > [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-October/462668.html > > > > Yes I saw that but I forgot to look at it. I think it makes sense - we > > do that with devicetree, for example. > > > > Is that the only thing holding you back? > > Basically yes - the only other concerns I have is about this += > construct which makes the '+' character an illegal character for > environment variable names, but only when used at the end of the > variable. This is anything but nice or consistent. Iwonder what > happens with notations like these: > > foo+=bar -> "bar" gets appended to current value of "foo" > But what for: > foo\+=bar > or > foo+ = bar > > ?
Can we just ban + ? In the above, foo\+ gives an unknown escape sequence from the C preprocessor, then the whole line is ignored by the script foo+ = bar produes a variable called "foo+ " in the environment with the value " bar" so you probably don't want that. > > And please see also my comments about changing the autostart > functionality for the user. Yes I saw that and I think it is OK to change it. What do you think? > > > I haven't seen any positive comments to this series yet... > > Maybe many long-term users of U-Boot don't see the current situation > as such a big problem? I have no idea. My original motivation was the complexity of getting the env you want using #define My current motivation is to complete the CONFIG migration, now in its 8th year. Regards, Simon
