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

[Jerry Van Baren]

Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> 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'

Yup, I'll have to fix that.

>> * 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.

Kumar being kind.  :-D

>> Do you have a boot script "use case" to illustrate a sequence that 
>> works for you?
> 
> yes, will post in a follow up.

Thanks, I'll run that tonight.

>> 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 

[snip]

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

Yup.  I took my eye off the ball.

Best regards,
gvb