[U-Boot] [PATCH] Add bootstrap command

[Stefan Roese]

On Thursday 16 July 2009 22:08:27 Matthias Fuchs wrote:
> > OK. But if your "sbe" command is "better" than the current bootstrap one,
> > then let's see if it makes sense to use your command as the common one.
>
> Dirk's approach is very generic. Putting nothing but the EEPROM data and a
> descriptive table into the board file is what we need.

I'm aware of this, since I suggested to Dirk to implement it this way. ;)

> I only suggest to
> add an additional label to each entry that is used instead of using numbers
> and I'd to pass this label as argument instead of the a number. One could
> use the numbers as labels also :-)

Ack.

> When you do no pass the argument we could either print the descriptive
> texts as menu (as DIrk did so far) and wait for input or just print the
> texts as kind of help and the must supply an argument if he want to change
> something (I prefer the latter).

Yes, just printing all available config options when called without parameter 
is what I prefer as well. Something like this:

=> 4xx_config (or 4xx_bootstrap)
Available configurations:
  Name                CPU  PLB  OPB  EBC  Boot-Location
  1                   333  133  66   66   NOR
  2                   333  133  66   66   NAND
  3                   333  133  66   66   PCI
  4                   400  133  66   66   NOR
  5                   400  133  66   66   NAND
  6                   400  160  80   53   NOR
  ...

The board maintainer could of course use real "names" instead of the numbers 
here.

> > > > Does you command support more features? What's the main
> > > > difference?
> > >
> > > Much simpler. Just call sbe with a descriptive argument like a CPU
> > > frequency or something like '667-66' on a 440EPx target with 66Mhz PCI
> > > clock or 'sr-test-only' for something you will remove later :-). This
> > > has two advantages over just using
> > > numbers: You can remove configurations without making the following
> > > configs in the table moving to the front and its a little more secure
> > > meaning you have to type a couple of valid character to  reconfigure
> > > the clocking. Just using "bootstrap 5" is error-prone.
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> > > Well, I like my syntax and behavior, but I do not want to totally
> > > dismiss Dirk's idea as long as I can keep my sbe command :-)
> >
> > Seems that "your" command is not so bad. ;) I'll take a look at it
> > tomorrow. Perhaps we can use some of your ideas in such a new common
> > (PPC4xx) implementation. :)
>
> My implementation is nothing but ar if-!strcmp-else-if-!strcmp
> implementation. But putting things together is a good idea.

Yes, the implementation itself is non-optimal. I'll send an updated version of 
Dirk's patch with the "new" user interface and a new command-naming 
(hopefully) today.

Best regards,
Stefan

=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================