[U-Boot] bootm state -- stateful vs stateless
Jerry Van Baren
gvb.uboot at gmail.com
Fri Aug 8 04:37:50 CEST 2008
Kumar Gala wrote:
> One of the things that wasn't clear to me is if we are ok with
> maintaining state between 'bootm' subcommand inside u-boot or if we
> really require passing all state via arguments and env.
>
> While I know it would be nice if the subcommands were stateless I dont
> think this is practical.
>
> state we'd have to keep track of:
> * arguments to the "top level" bootm command
> * type of arguments (fit vs plain addresses)
> * Image information, for FIT we get something like:
[snip of killer state information]
> * entry point of OS image
> * region tracking of memory regions used by previous subcommands (OS
> image, bd_t, fdt, initrd, etc.)
>
> This seems like a lot of state to pass around in the env and via
> arguments to commands. My vote is for stateful sub_commands.
>
> - k
Useful info and analysis. I agree, it looks like we will need to be
stateful.
Best regards,
gvb
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list