Hello Sam, sorry for the late reply...
On 07.09.23 23:46, Sam Edwards wrote: > Hi Heiko and Simon, > > Thought I'd follow-up to keep this discussion going. The main thing I would > like to decide first (as > it lets me start relying on it in boot scripts) would be the UBI access > syntax: > > => ls ubi 0:rootfs /boot > => ls ubi 0:2 /boot Looks perfect for me. > Do those look good? Should I be trying to mimic the accepted syntax of > fs/ubifs/super.c:open_ubi()? > Perhaps "ubi 0!rootfs" and/or "ubi 0_2"? Not using ':' leaves open the > possibility for logical > volumes (LVM2/UBI) to contain partitions - not that I expect anyone will want > that. :) Good question... You never know... so from my side, yes it would be good to allow both options ... so "ubi 0:2" and "ubi 0_2", something like if ":" is in use "ubi 0:2" else try "ubi 0_2" Please rebase your patchset when 2023.10 is out, thanks! bye, Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-52 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: h...@denx.de
