[U-Boot] bootm state -- stateful vs stateless

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:

> 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.

Wolfgang do you agree?

- k