On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:39:33 +0100 Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> wrote: > On 3/7/22 12:40, Pali Rohár wrote: > > Hello! > > > > On Sunday 06 March 2022 14:38:57 Tony Dinh wrote: > >> Hi Pali, > >> > >> I have an observation, which is not related to this patch. But about > >> the kwboot options changes in general, I hope it is OK to mention it > >> here. > >> > >> Before the changes you've made to solve the problem with the -b > >> option, I can do this: > >> > >> kwboot -t -B 115200 /dev/ttyUSB0 -b uboot.kwb > > > > Interesting... I did not know that this kind of setup worked. It was not > > documented neither in usage nor in manpage. Normally in applications and > > scripts, all option arguments are before non-option (positional) > > argument. > > > >> But now, the -b option can not be used after the tty device name. All > >> options must appear before the tty device. > >> > >> Is this the actual intention? it did break some of my existing > >> aliases/scripts (It is not a big deal to retrofit them). Just want to > >> make sure I understand the reason to make the tty device a positional > >> argument for kwboot. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Tony > > > > Marek, Stefan, do you want to support above (old) handling of positional > > tty device argument to be present in the middle of option arguments? > > I personally don't... > > > I think I can develop some "hack" patch for argv[] processing to support > > this operation. But my question is, if this is something which we want > > to officially support. Because if not, it is better to have separate > > option arguments and positional arguments like in any other application. > > ... > > The only case I can think of, is scripts that use the "incorrect" format > and might fail now. I don't have any such scripts and I would not object > to breaking this backward compatibility. Tony, what's your thinking on > this? Marek?
I don't care. I only care whether I can use the -t flag after everything else, and I think this still works. Marek
