[U-Boot] [RFC][PATCH v4] bootm: Add sub commands

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:

> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>>> * Use new find_cmd_tbl() to process sub-commands
>>>>>
>>>>> If this looks good I'll go ahead and clean it up for the other   
>>>>> arches and OSes.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> common/cmd_bootm.c |  142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>> include/image.h    |   20 ++++-
>>>>> lib_ppc/bootm.c    |  262 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  
>>>>> +------------------
>>>>> 3 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
>>>> Guys,
>>>> Any comments on this?
>>>> - k
>>>
>>> I didn't get to it over the weekend.   Here in the North summer is  
>>> a fleeting thing to be savored while it lasts.  :-/
>> Any more feedback on this towards getting something into -next?
>> - k
>
> Hi Kumar,
>
> I've been working on the micro side (the bootm [a-z]+ commands) and  
> the macro side (understanding cmd_bootm.c and image.c).
>
> I've been keeping notes on the denx.de wiki (inappropriately) on the  
> FDT page.  They aren't entirely coherent either.  :-/
>
> I applied your changeset and verified that the traditional bootm  
> syntax worked.  I then tried to figure out a working sequence of  
> bootm [a-z]+ commands and failed.
>  <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/UBootFdtInfo#Sequence>
> * I didn't see any command for disabling interrupts

You have to have the interrupt command built in.  than you can do  
'interrupts off'

>
> * When I do the "bootm loados" command, my target (MPC8360EMDS)  
> reboots
>  * Could be because interrupts are not disabled but we overwrite the  
> exception vectors.
>  * Could be I'm doing something wrong.

this is most likely the case.

> Do you have a boot script "use case" to illustrate a sequence that  
> works for you?

yes, will post in a follow up.

> I have also been looking at the functions defined in cmd_bootm.c and  
> image.c.  Image.c is HUGE.  Cmd_bootm.c is pretty complex and part  
> of the complexity is that it is closely coupled with image.c  
> functions.
> * I would like to separate and understand the control flow separate  
> from the image handling, fdt handling, bd_t handling, etc.
> * Image.c is WAY too large: 2x what it probably should be.  Looking  
> at it, it seems like we should pull all the FIT stuff out of image.c  
> and make a new fit_image.c.  (I don't know what sort of coupling  
> there would be between a legacy image.c and a new fit_image.c, I  
> suspect not much.)
>
> Enumerating the functions:
> <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/UBootFdtInfo#Refactoring_cmd_bootm_c 
> >
> <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/UBootFdtInfo#Refactoring_image_c>

refactoring image.c is orthogonal to the functionality I'm trying to  
enable.

- k